05.

far as

id, be v

a pre

He hoped, then, to be able to satisfy the Senator from Missouri that even the act of the last session, which received his most undissembled approbation, ought now to be carried into full effect, and that the appropriations for that purpose should not be withheld. But he was sure that enough had already transpired to satisfy his honorable friend from New Jersey that this is not the fit time, nor is this the proper occasion to bring before the Senate, thus incidentally, the merits of the act of the last session. He hoped that the Senator would withdraw his proposed amendment and permit the bill to pass without objection; but should the Senator decline so to do, he should certainly not only vote for his amendment but he would endeavour to reply to some of the suggestions of the honorable Senator from Missouri.

which had been made against them.

Mr. WALL was not disposed to occupy the time of the Senate in reply to the honorable SenaHow he has fallen into such tor from Missour!. an error in relation to a law upon our statute book, and embracing that occasion to denounce the pension system, he could not imagine. This law was passed at the last session, but we made no appropriation to meet it: we come back here, and the first thing we do is to take care of ourselves. We cannot retrace our steps in this matter. The law is already passed; one thousand applicants have already received their certificates; and we owe it to ourselves, to our country, to the pensioners themselves, to pass this amendment as an act of sheer We have passed the law, and jusjustice. tice requires that we should make appropriations to meet it.

Mr. DAVIS expressed his gratification at the refusal of the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. WALL] to withdraw the amendment, and said that, if he had done so, he should have renewed it himself. Those who had received certificates under the act of the last session, were entitled to their pensions, and could not be deprived of them; and as the time when these certificates would be due was drawing near, he thought it very proper that provision should be made for them in this bill.

Mr. D. made a few remarks defending the pension system generally, and the act of the last session in particular, and denied that our pension list was at all assimilated to that of Great Britain, where persons were pensioned who had rendered no service to their country. He asked if those who fought and bled through the war of the Revolution were to be compared with those who were put in the red book of Great Britain, without any merit of their own; and were their wounds to be no more 'regarded than the hereditary claims of the British pensioner!

Mr. D. after commenting on the merits and services of the soldiers of the Revolution, and referring to the depreciated funds in which they were paid, asked for the yeas and nays on the amendment, which were accordingly ordered.

the number who had been placed on the pension list, under the act of March, 1818, were never reinstated. It must be recollected, that more than twenty thousand had, at one time, been admitted under that act; and when the list of pensioners under the act of June, 1832, is compared with the list under the act of March, 1818, it should be borne in mind that probably not less than one-third of those now pensioners under the act of June, 1832, were once included in the list of pensioners under the act of March, 1818. The act of June, 1832, includes those who served in the militia and as State troops, as well as those who served in the continental line for six months and upwards; granting pensions in proportion to the period of service equal to one-half the original pay; not in any case to grant a pension for a period of more than two years' service; while the act of March, 1818, grants a pension of ninety-six dollars a year for any period of service not less than nine months. It is not, therefore, difHe was ficult to account for the difference in the number of the pensioners under these different acts. perfectly aware that there was not less than twentyfive thousand on the list under the act of June, 1832, while there was less than ten thousand under the act of March, 1818. But it should also be remembered that by the provisions of the acts of Congress, invalid pensioners, for disabilities incurred during the war of the Revolution, are entitled also to all the benefits of the act of June, 1832. He therefore found no difficulty in accounting for the difference in the number of pensioners under the act of March, 1818, and the number under the act of June, 1832.

as

After these acts had been passed, Congress, by a law of 1836, extended all the benefits of the act of June, 1832, to the widows of those soldiers of the Revolution whose husbands had died before the passage of the act, and where the marriage took place before the expiration of the last period of their husbands' service. This act, as far as it went, he verily believed met with general approbation It was regarded through the country. an act of justice, as well as humanity. But to understand the it was extremely difficult reason why those widows, whose marriage took place before the expiration of their husbands' service, should be pensioned, and those widows, whose marriage took place immediately after the close of the Revolutionary struggle, should be excluded. There seemed to be no good reason for the distinction-it was invidious in its character-it was unjust in its effect, and memorial after memorial, resolution after resolution was introduced with a view to do away with this distinction, and the Committee on Pensions, at the last session, responding to these calls, introduced the bill which is now It was reported, had its seunder consideration. veral readings here, was passed, had its several readings in the other House, and was passed; and And during its progress, not one word was heard in either branch in opposition to the measure. what is now proposed? That the appropriation necessary to carry it into effect, should be withheld, because the act could not have been well considered. Congress failed to do its duty at the last session, in not making the requisite appropriation; and he presumed that Senators supposed that this act with the acts of May, 1828, June, 1832, and effect. June, 1836, contained a clause making the necessary appropriations to carry it into He presumed that a majority in this or the other House could not be found in favor of repealing this act; and it seemed to him passing strange that, while the act exists in the statute book, there should be a single Senator who wonld vote to withhold the appropriation, and thus defeat the practical operation of a measure which has been sanctioned by the legislative power of the Government.

by resolution after resolution, made liberal provision to those who should continue in theservice to the close of the revolution. First half-pay for life, and that commuted for five years' full pay. The non-fulfilment of these resolutions, the manner in which the services of these men had been requited by their Government, induced the passage of the act of May, 1828. All admitted that it was a most just measure of legislation; and the act of June, 1832, was but an extension of the benefits of the act of May, 1828. It granted pensions to those, whether militia, State, or continentals, according to the period of their service, withholding pensions from those who had rendered a less period of service than six months. This was the general provision of the act of June, 1832. It was founded on Revolutionary service, and on that alone; it was intended to make same satisfaction for that service, and for that alone. It may be well to just trace the history of our pension system, and see how the several acts granting these annuities were passed. The act of March, 1818, the first general pension act, seems to find favor here, and the several acts granting pensions for disabilities incurred during the Revolution and during the last war, seem also most justly to find favor here. Will any Senator say that the act of March, 1818, was supported on the ground of mere gratuity? that it was passed on any such ground? No: it was supported, and it was passed, on the ground of service. It is perfectly true that the act of March, 1818, was not only extremely limited in its provisions--including those, and those only, who were attached to the continental line-but it was also extremely humiliating in its requisitions. Its benefits were intended to be extended only to those who were either tenants of the poor-house, or supported by private charity. But, nevertheless, that bill was also founded on service alone; and under its provisions, a much larger number than was ever anticipated was added to the pension roll. This led to the passage of the act of 1820, which, for a time, suspended the pensions which had been granted under the act of March, 1818, and which required that schedules of property should be furnished, that the Department might judge whether the applicants were in such indigent circumstances as to need relief from the country. It was done and the consequence was, that nearly one-half of

as

Mr. CALHOUN regarded the whole system of pensions in a light far different form that in which it was viewed by the Senators from Massachusetts and New Hampshire. With the exception of the first pension act, he looked upon it as little more than a system of distributing the public revenue. It grew out of the protective system, and was founded on no principle of justice or patriotism, for it took all who served in the Revolution, and put those who only tur

ned out on a tour of three months in the same footing as those who had fought the battles of the whole war. He understood this system from beginning to end, and it was commenced as a means of disbursing the public revenue which had been iniquitously collected. To tell him that all these now on the pension list deserved the bounty if the Government, was to impose on him a humbug too gross to be listened to. Pension laws were passed, and there were swarms of undertakers here, and in the States, who hunted up documents and brought forward every description of claims, just or unjust, and passed them on the Department without a possibility of their guarding against the grossest fraud in a number of cases. It was impossible for Congress to pass pension laws without having a plenty to support them. To show how the system operated he would mention one fact. Before Congress undertook the business of pensioning the soldiers of the Revolution, Massachusetts and South Carolina each had pension laws of their own. The pension list of South Carolina amounted to $14,000 annually, while that of Massachusetts amounted to only $1000. Well, Congress took these pensions in hand, and after the expiration of several years the pensioners of Massachusetts are swelled up to $200,000 per annum, while those of South Carolina receive only $10,000. Now this fact alone would show that the pension system did not originate in patriotism, because it would not be denied that the patriotism of the one State was as great as that of the other. It was time that this thing was stopped, or they would have to run the country in debt to provide for it. He knew very well that as long as there was money in the Treasury, it would be got at; but he thanked Providence that the time had come round when they must stop short in their career of extravagance. We had now no surplus; and the compromise bill was bringing down the revenue, while there seemed to be a general disinclination to increase the national debt. He took his ground beforehand, and solemnly declared that he never would agree either to increase the tariff or create a new debt; and he called on all those who thought with him to resist, at the outset, any measure which led to those evils. He rejoiced at the crimination and recrimination which he heard on that floor between the two contending parties on the subject of extravagant expenditure. Both parties, in his opinion, were in fault, but the Opposition party, who were the most fosward in making these charges, were certainly the most in fault. As an Opposition party, it would be more becoming in them to do all in their power to check extravagant expenditures; but instead of that, it was mainly through their means that our expenditures had been so great. He warned the friends of the Administration that it was now time to economise. This year we might get through with our expenses without embarrassment, and so, also, as to the second year; but the third year the press would come, and we should have the utmost difficulty in making our resources meet the necessary wants of the Govern

ment.

Mr. BENTON observed that the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. DAV:s] had arrayed before them the wounded men of the Revolution, mashed to pieces by ball, and covered with wounds, and asks if we would take away the small pittance which they received from the gratitude and justice of their country. He would tell that gentleman, that if this pension list is reduced to those who received wounds in the service of the country, these forty thousand pensioners will decrease more rapidly than did Falstaff's men in buckram. If the list was reduced to those who received wounds in the Revolution, or in the subsequent Indian wars, or in the late war with Great Britain, not one tithe of those who now enjoy pensions would be on the list. If for all those who were wounded in the Revolution, taking the whole of them together, 40,000 are to be pressed on our sympathies, every wounded soldier, every cripple would have to bear on his shoulders the burden of ten sound men. His voice would surely always be in favor of the meritorious soldier who served his country faithfully in the Revolution; but he could not agree that there was any justice or expediency in pensioning

this large number. Mr. B. then took a view of the different pension acts, from 1818, up to this time, showing how the number of pensioners had gradually increased. He was sufficiently familiar with the subject to know that there are now put on the pension roll numbers who had enlisted after the surrender of Lord Cornwallis, and who never moved from their firesides; and these persons are all to be forced on our sympathies as wounded soldiers of the Revolution,

Mr. B. next spoke particularly against the impropriety of engrafting on the ordinary appropriation bills for the support of Government, objects which ought to stand on their own merits. The subject introduced by the amendment of the Senator from New Jersey, [Mr. WALL,] was one certainly worthy of an examination, and it ought to stand by itself.

Mr. BUCHANAN observed, that if he understood this amendment, he did not think that either the Senator from South Carolina, [Mr. CALHOUN,] or the Senator from Missouri [Mr. BENTON,] understood it. Unless he was mistaken this was not a provision to pension men, but applied exclusively to old ladies, widows of revolutionary soldiers, and it was for them that this provision was to be made. Now in any system of economy he did not think we ought to attack the old ladies first; and as the Government of the United States had pledged itself to make them this payment, the amendment ought to pass. Whether the act creating these pensions was right or wrong, he would not undertake to say; but the law having been passed, we were bound in good faith to carry it into effect. The first law passed in 1836 provided that if a lady had married a Revolutionary soldier before the term of his service expired, and had faithfully remained his widow ever since; that that widow, old, helpless, and faithful to her first husband, ought to receive from the bounty of the Government a sufficiency to preserve her from want. He had no doubt but the pension system had been grossly abused, and that some persons were on the list who did not deserve to be there; but if he were going to put it down, he would not for the first time violate the act of Congress by refusing to make the necessary appropriation to carry it into effect, as far as the ladies were concerned, and at all events he would not begin with them. The law of the last session was extended, so as to provide for those widows who were married up to January, 1794. He did not know whether he would have voted for this law or not; but it had been passed; it was now on the statute book; the time of payment was drawing nigh, and an attempt was now made to withhold from these widows the pensions so promised them, by refusing to make the appropriation.

It had been objected that this bill was not the proper place in which to insert the provision for these pensions. Now, what was the appropriate sphere of an appropriation bill? Was it not to provide for carrying out the existing laws? and, if so, was there not here presented an existing law to be carried into effect? And did any body suppose that any appropriation bill could now be introduced and passed in sufficient time to provide for these pensions by the first of January, when the certificates for them become due? The time to contend against the principle involved was when the bill passed, and not now, when the faith of the Government was committed. With regard to economy, he was glad to hear the sentiments that had been expressed on all sides. Economy, however, was a matter of detail, and not of genera's, since the most extravagant men he had known had preached the best sermons in favor of economy. Now he, for his part, was prepared to act in detail, and resist these extravagant expenditures that had been so often referred to, one by one, whenever they should be proposed, though he should be charged with illiberality for so doing; but the last act of economy that he would practice, would be to withhold these pensions, after Congress had passed a solemn act declaring that it would provide for these widows who are now all near the grave, and make their old age comfortable. When the proper time came to examine into the pension list, he trusted that he would be willing to do that which

economy as well as justice required. But he could not agree to make the case of these widows the first for the exercise of the former.

Mr. BENTON observed that the documents show. ed two classes of widows on the pension roll; the one class older than the last, who, perhaps, would not thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for making them out to be so ancient. The bill of the last session extended the pension list to those married up to 1794, and he supposed that the next thing would be to extend it to those who were married up to 1824, or even up to this time. He saw no reason for a distinction after going beyond those who were the matrons of the Revolution, staying at home attending to the duties of their families, while their husbands were absent fighting the battles of their country. This last mentioned class deserved their pensions, and were not to be compared with those who were girls when the last gun of the Revolution was fired, or, perhaps, not then born.

Mr. DAVIS said that the Senator from Missouri [Mr. BENTON] who has just taken his seat, has shifted his ground somewhat on this subject. He was not disposed to consume time in following him. The day of payment of these pensions is at hand, and provision must be made to provide for them. He did not think there was any gendeman who would oppose the appropriation on principle, though they might, because they deemed it out of place. The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. CALHOUN] designates it as a mode of getting rid of the public money; a distribution bili, an iniquitous distribution bill. You may, sir, with just the same propriety apply this to any other appropriation of the public money. I go on the ground that this is an appropriation for services rendered, and not a gratuity at all. The Senator also says it is a system peculiar to one portion or section of the country: he also says it is connected with the protective system. The honorable Senator should have recollected that the first act granting pensions to Revolutionary soldiers, passed in 1816, and the principal one in 1820: the tariff act was not passed till 1824, four years after the principal pension law was passed. These facts do not sustain the statement of the honorable Senator. He has instituted a comparison between the patriotism of South Carolina and Massachusetts.

[Mr. CALHOUN disclaimed this, and said he had alluded to the difference of payment made on the claims of the respective States.]

But these acts are not designed to reimburse States, but to pay individuals. If the records of the Revolution would be searched, it would be ascertained that Massachusetts furnished one-third of the whole army that achieved our independence. It is asserted that there are frauds, and frauds of a gross character, in relation to these claims. If so, I am perfectly ready to have the names of the individuals guilty of them expunged from the pension roll: and not only that, but have them tried, and punished for the crime of perjury; but unless furiher evidence was brought forward than had as yet been adduced, he would not believe it to be the fact. It is not just to attach this odious charge to these venerated and respected individuals, to whom we owe the political blessings we enjoy, and even the privilege of holding our seats here.

Mr. CALHOUN, in reply to Mr. DAVIS, said that when he spoke of the pension system as having grown out of the protective system, he of course excepted the act of 1818. That act, be said, originated in mistake. It was introduced and carried through by Gen. Bloomfield, then a Senator from New Jersey, who declared himself willing to pledge his whole private fortune that the whole amount necessary to provide for the class of pensions introduced into that bill would. not exceed $200,000. He, as Secretary of War, had to carry this act into effect, and having made his calculations, the conclusion he arrived at was that it would require upwards of a million; but the amount expended under it, the very first year, was at least two millions, though he exercised the utmost vigilance to keep down the expense. Had he executed the law in a liberal spirit, the expenditure would have exceeded three millions.

After some further remarks from Mr. C. in op

position to the pension system generally, and from Mr. DAVIS in reply,

Mr. WALL. My honorable friend from Missouri has said this was a very unusual course, and was calculated to retard the passage of, and defeat the bill to which it was offered as an amendment. But not so, sir. We passed this bill at the last session, and taking care of ourselves, neglected to make provision for the payment of these old women; and we are cailed on by every motive of justice to do it now.. Where is the difference between the bill and the amendment which is offered to it? What gives us the power to pass the bill for our compensation? Because it is a law upon the statute book. What gives these old women a claim upon our justice? Because a law granting them compensation is pon the statute book; and because I make a motion to that effect, the honorable gentleman takes occasion to charge me with an intention to defeat the passage of the appropriation bill, and embarrass the operations of the Government. My honorable friend should have considered well before he made this charge. He has done me great injustice. I rejoice that I had the opportunity of making this motion. I could not have looked my constituents in the face, had I neglected to provide for these poor, aged and helpless women, tottering on the brink of the grave, in this inclement season, without a mouthful of food for sustenance, or shelter to honse them.

Mr. BENTON said the Senator from New Jersey was mistaken in supposing that be charged him with a design to defeat this bill. He spoke only of the consequences resulting from mixing up incongruous matter in the same bill. As the gentleman from New Jersey was so anxious about these widows, he would ask him if those who were married on the second day of January, 1794, were not as much entitled to pensions as those who were married on the first? Would not every word of his pathetic appeal apply as well in behalf of all those who were married up to this day as to those who were married previous to 1st January, 1794. Mr. MORRIS expressed great satisfaction at the discussion of this subject which had taken place. For his own part he was doubtful whether or not he should vote for this amendment. While he was opposed to our whole system of pensions, he acknowledged the obligation to provide for the carrying out the laws already enacted. Plad as he was on the Committee on Pensions, he occupied a false position. He doubted the propriety and beneficial tendency of the system, and though that it was the parent of innumerable frauds. He agreed with the honorable Senator from South Carolina [Mr. CALHOUN] that it was time for us to pause in this business; to stop and look round us; that we might not only, by hasty and ill-advised measures, do much mischief by creating demands upon the Treasury and exhausting the means of the Government, but, by a false and pernicious system of gratuities, do an injury to those whom it was intended to benefit. The law of last session was passed against his better judgment. [Mr. MORRIS here went into a recapitulation of the reasons that induced the Committee on Pensions to report the bill.] He contended that it was a gratuity; all pensions are gratuities. The soldier enters into service for the pay and emoluments of his rank, and all that he receives over and above is a gratuity. When the Treasury is drained, and we are straitened in our resources, he thought that in any scheme of retrenchment mere gratuities should be the first expenditures to begin with. He was in favor of lopping off all extraneous and unnecessary expenditures. The honorable Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. DAVIS] has asserted, and asserted repeatedly, that though Senators objected to this appropriation, on account of its being placed as an amendment to a common appropriation bill, yet no Senator had objected to the pension system, er would object to the system. He should be happy to see some gentleman submit notion to instruct the Committee on Pensions to bring in a bill repealing the whole system. The honorable gentleman would then be convinced that there was one Senator at least who would take a stand against all this sort of feeling and sympathy which had been engendered by an array of an army of old

ladias against us. We should not permit our feelings for ladies, either old or young, to prompt us to put our hands into the public Treasury. These pension bills find too easy access; they are passed tco easily. I have known young athletic men to come before the committee and claim pensions granted to their mothers or other relations, and when granted, claim them as their own. Why, it was made a mere business of: as soon as a law was passed, claims were hunted up by agents and others that would have never been thought of. Persons who have no disposition to enter into this business, are induced to do so by representations that their claim was as good as another's; that the Treasury was full, and Congress did not know what to do with the public money. When the first act was passed, providing for the soldiers of the Revolution who were in need of pecuniary assistance, many of them were in comfortable circumstances. They were induced to convey their property to their sons, took the oath of poverty, and received their pensions. Was not this a fraud, morally speaking, and a fraud tempted by the legislation of this Government? Notwithstanding the great number of persons on the pension list, at least five claims were rejected to every one that was granted, producing a great deal of hatred and ill will to the Government, because every claimant thinks his claim, and his right to a pension, as good as another's. With these views of the present pension system, I am prepared to repeal it. I think it injurious to the country, and of comparatively litthe good to those intended to be benefited. I am willing that the invalids and soldiers of the Revolution should be provided for. As regards the act the appropriation for which is under consideration, he thought that, soi as due, the pension should be paid. Until the law is changed we should comply with its provisions, but the amount already called for under its provisions should warn us of the unpolicy of continuing the system. Here are already one thousand women enrolled since last year, and how many more will be enrolled no one can tell. He hoped that something would be done by Congress at an early day as a guide for the action of the Committee on Pensions: whether we should recommend those cases that appealed to our sympathies, or those of whose justice our reason was convinced. He thought the whole system was liable to objection; that, even to the aged veterans intended to be benefitted by it, it has operated as an injury. By throwing them on the pittance of eight dollars a month, they have been induced to neglect honest industry, and have been brought to poverty. He hoped that some member, who had taken an active part in this discussion, would bring forward a proposition to repeal the law, and he would be prepared to spread his views before the Senate and the country.

Mr. PIERCE said: When I rose at the same moment with the Senator from Ohio, [Mr. MORRIS,] it was with the intention of making some explanations, which I considered due from the committee by whom the bill of the last session, which has been so often referred to, was reported. Those explanations have been made, as I trust, satisfactoily, by the Senator who has just resumed his

seat.

The attention of the Senate has been called, in the progress of this debate, not only to the pension system generally, but, as is not unusual here, to various other matters, historical, political, and financial. With these topics I have at present nothing to do; and although I have very decided opinions as to the inequality and injustice of some of the provisions of the various pension laws, and a much stronger belief than I could desire to entertain of frauds perpetrated under them, still the proposition now pending to meet obligations imposed by existing laws, does not appear to me to be the appropriate one for discussing the policy of past legislation. That question as applicable to this subject, I will say, in reply to a remark of the Senator near me, I shall probably have occasion to raise in a few days, by the introduction of a bill to provide for the punishment of certain frauds committed on persons claiming penstons, and for other purposes.

Whatever might have become the subjects of

speculation in these times, when the imaginations of men seem to be unusually occupied with schemes for acquiring sudden and abundant riches without labor, one would have expected that the soldiers of the Revolution and their widows might have escaped the grasping avarice of all men, however destitute of principle. But such is not the fact-as an American citizen, I say it with shame-but the truth must be told; it must be told, for the protection of the feeble, the ignorant, and the unsuspecting. Such frauds, I am assured by information derived from various sources, and in part from the department which has charge of this subject, are extensive as they are disgraceful. For the benefit of successful claimants, who may draw their first payments before the bill to which I have referred can be considered by Congress, I desire at this time, and upon this proposition for an appropriation, to make a few remarks. I have been informed, and believe it to be true, that the passage of the law of July last, and the passage of preceding laws of a similar character, have been the signal for agents to traverse the country in every direction in search of the aged and imbecile persons therein provided for: not with the laudable motive of assisting them to secure their rights at the least possible expense, but to practice upon their credulity, and impose upon their weakness and their ignorance. It is notorious that contracts have not unfrequently been made by such agents, by which, if successful, they were to receive a large portion of the amount which should first be drawn; in many instances twenty-five per cent. in others fifty per cent. and in some even more; and in cases where no special contract has been made, the most exorbitant fees have been demanded and paid. Since my arrival in this city, I have received a letter giving the name of a certain agent who obtained, during the last summer, or the early part of antumn, a certificate for an aged widow under the act of 1836, by which she was entitled to receive, in September last, six nundred dollars. The money was duly paid, and the agent claimed and retained for his services the sum of $250. I name this as an individual instance recently brought to my knowledge. A fair and liberal compensation for all services rendered and expenses incurred, in ordinary cases, under the act of the last session, would be from five to ten dollars; in very few instances should such compensation exceed the latter sum, the evidence of the husbands' service being generally on file in the Department. It may be asked how the claimants are induced to make such contracts, when the provisions of the law are plain, and the regulations of the Department simple and easy to be complied with, and why they submit to such exorbitant charges? The answer is obvious. The benificiaries are usually in the humble and obscure walks of life-poor and infirm-imbecile through age, and ignorant of the steps necessary to be taken. Besides they are too much elated with the prospect of obtaining any sum, however trifling, to relieve their immediate necessities to cavil about terms, and they eagerly embrace the first proffer of assistance. Is it surprising, under all the circumstances, that it their second childhood, they should become the ready dupes of artful and dishonest men, However, I have nothing to do with the means by which agents are enabled to cheat and defraud the pensioner. The thing has been done, and I fear will continue to be done, so long as money shall be drawn from your Treasury for these purposes. Pensioners have been robbed of no small portion of the pittance intended to be secured to them, and them alone. Yes sir, worse than robbed, for men who have so far forgotten their manhood, nay, who have so entirely cast off all sense of honor and common honesty as to speculate upon and plunder Revolutionary soldiers, or the helpless widows who may survive them, are sunk in disgrace infinitely below the level of the brigand, who openly confronts you upon the highway and demands your purse. Thus much I have thought it my duty to say, to put persons entitled to pensions upon their guard against these cormorants; and I hope that my remarks may fall not only under the observation of the agents, who have argus eyes for every thing rela

ting to this subject, but that they may reach some of the worthy claimants. If they shall have any effect in preventing injustice and extortion, my object will be attained. All such agreements as I have before alluded to are conceived and consummated in fraud, and are in direct violation of the spirit and intention of the law. They are in no way obligatory, legally or morally, and should be so regarded by the pensioner.

Mr. WRIGHT made a brief explanation of the reasons which prevented the Committee on Finance from recommending this amendment when applied to do so by the Senator from New Jersey. Although he thought that this appropriation ought to be made, inasmuch as it was called for by an express law of Congress, which all admitted ought to be carried into effect; yet, as it was an appropriation, sui generis, and had always been provided for by the House of Representatives in a separate bill, he thought it ought not to be engrafted on the bill then before them, and would prefer its coming from the House of Representatives, where it ought properly to originate, in a bill of its own.

Mr. BUCHANAN did not intend to go further into this question, but he rose to protest against its being admitted that this body was not competent to originate appropriation bills. He knew that, upon a very late occasion, when an attempt was made in that body to introduce a large appropriation in a House bill, that this question was raised, but he resisted the principle then. It was true that burthens laid on the people must originate in the House of Representatives, but after the money has gone into the Treasury it was giving up too much by the Senate to admit that they have no right to originate an appropriation of it.

Mr. WRIGHT explained. He never doubted the right of the Senate, as claimed by the Senator from Pennsylvania; he only spoke of the practice.

Mr. BUCHANAN said that the question was of practice, and not of power; for, on that occasion, gentlemen were very ready to exercise the latter. Though it had not been the practice in that body, since he had been there, yet to appropriation bills of that nature, coming from the House, large appropriations had been added. If he were to admit that the Senate ought not to originate such bills, the case presented by the Senator from New Jersey ought to be an exception to the rule. As to those widows who were married between 1783 and 1794, he did not know whether he would have voted for them or not; but as the faith of the Government was to be redeemed, and there was a large amount of arrears due from the time of the passage of the act till now, he hoped the amendment would be adopted. He did not believe there was a Senator present who would vote against the appropriation if it came up in a way he approved of. Even the Senator from South Carolina admitted that the faith of the Government pledged. As this was a proposition to carry into effet an existing law, he must vote in the affirmative; but if it were not a proposition to carry into execution an existing law, he must consider that there was some force in the objections of gentlemen who had opposed it.

was

Mr. STRANGE said that he should vote against the amendment of the Senator from New Jersey, for most of the reasons assigned by the gentlemen who had opposed it. He disliked taking up this matter of importance and connecting it with a matter of equal importance wholly dissimilar to it. In order to enable Senators to come to a correct conclusion with regard to it, it ought to stand on its own merits. It had been suggested, in the course of the debate, that there was a general law requir ing these pensions to be paid at stated periods-in March and September. Now there certainly was time enough between this and March to provide for the cases embraced in this amendment, and the arrearages could be put off till that time. But this was a matter of great importance, and not a vagne question of expediency only. He believed that it was part of a great system of raising the public money and then spending it. He was not prepared to say whether this was a question of public faith; but, at all events, there ought to be an inquiry into the propriety of making the expenditure. He would not, however, have troubled the Senate at this late

period of the day, but for the purpose of bringing to light some facts very appropriate at this time, when economy and retrenchment had been so much spoken of. At the last session he had the honor to say, in reply to charges of prodigality and extravagance that had been made against the Administration and its friends, that the Opposition itself was to blame for most of the extravagance that had been committed; and he had further said that the proof of this would be found by a reference to the journals. His colleague the other day had repeated the same thing, and as the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. DAVIS] had joined issue with him, and had challenged the production of proof, it would be an admission of erroneous assertion on their part if they did not bring it forward.

Repeated efforts had been made by those in the opposition to inculcate the belief that the Administration was guilty of the greatest extravagance, and the only way to meet these charges was to come forward with the proof. He had had but little opportunity since the charge was made of supplying himself with all the proof that could be found; but he had, however, turned over the leaves of the journal since the last session, and found that every charge made by his colleague was fully substantiated. He would cite a few cases for the information of the Senate, by which they might judge of the whole. He found at the last session that the bill for the continuation of the Cumberland roal in the States of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, was several times before the Senate; and as this bill involved a heavy expenditure, he would refer to it first in order.

Here was a measure, Mr. S. said, which had a tendency to pledge the country for heavy future expenditures and in order to avoid this, the amendment was introduced by the Senator from Mississippi. It was very easy to see whether the measure was supported by the friends of the Administration or not. In perfect fairness he would now call their attention to a vote in which it would be found that he himself voted on the side of extravaganee. It was a case in which his constituents were interested, and where they expected him to vote for it. It was the amendment to the act giving the assent of Congress to the act of the Legislature of Virginia, incorporating the Falmouth and Alexandria Turnpike Road Company.

Mr. S. here read the yeas and nays in which he was found voting in the affirmative.

In page 414 of the Journal would be found the passage of the Cumberland Road bill, which was passed by the following vote.

"Those who voted in the affirmative wereMessrs. Allen, Bayard, Benton, Buchanan, Clay of Kentucky, Crittenden, Cuthbert, Davis, Fulton, Grundy, Knight, Linn, McKean, Merrick, Morris, Nicholas, Robbins, Robinson, Sevier, Smith of Indiana, Spence, Swift, Tipton, Webster, Wright, and Young.

"Those who voted in the negative were-Messrs. Calhoun, Clay of Alabama, Clayton, Hubbard, King, Lyon, Mouton, Niles, Norvell, Pierce, Prentiss, Preston, Roane, Smith of Connecticut, Strange, Trotter, Williams."

After citing the unanimous vote on the bill for the suppression of Indian hostilities, and which Mr. S.said no man had the hardihood to vote against, Mr. S. referred to the bill to purchase the the right to use Dr Reilly's bath.

on both sides who voted against it. The yeas were, Messrs. Allen, Bayard, Clay of Kentucky, Crittenden, Davis, Fulton, Knight, Merrick, Morris, Prentiss, Rives, Robbins, Robinson, Sevier, Smith of Indiana, Swift, Tallmadge, Tipton, Webster, White, and Young. Those who voted in the negative were, Messrs. Benton, Brown, Calhoun, Clayton, Cuthbert, Hubbard, King, Linn, Lumpkin, Mouton, Nicholas, Niles, Norvell, Pierce, Roane, Strange, Trotter, Walker, Wall, Williams, and Wright."

Now, in discussing this subject he had always admitted that some few of the Administration party, for particular reasons, could always be found to vote for a number of these expenditures.

"Again, on motion by Mr. NORVELL to lay this bill on the table, it was decided in the negativeyeas 18, nays 19. The yeas were, Messrs. Bayard, Brown, Buchanan, Cuthbert, Fulton, Hubbard, King, Lumpkin, Lyon, McKean, Mouton, Nicho las, Norvell, Rives, Roane, Walker, Wall, and Williams. The nays were, Messrs. Allen, Benton, Clay of Kentucky, Crittenden, Grundy, Knight, Merrick, Morris, Robinson, Sevier, Smith of Indiana, Spence, Swift, Tallmadge, Tipton, Trotter, Webster, White, and Young."

In page 328 of the journal, it would be found that "The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the Whole, the bill making appropriations for certain roads in the Territory of Wisconsin; and having been amended, it was reported to the Senate.

་

"On motion by Mr. WALKER, further to amend the bill by adding thereto the following proviso, Provided, always, that nothing contained in this act shall be construed as to imply that the United States are pledged, or in any manner bound, to make any appropriations in future to make or construct said roads, or any part or portion of them," | it was determined in the affirmative-yeas 23, nays 17.

"Those who voted in the affirmative were: 'Messrs. Allen, Calhoun, Clay of Alabama, Grundy, King, Lumpkin, Lyon, Mouton, Niles, Norvell, Pierce, Preston, Rives, Roan, Robbins, Ruggles, Smith of Connecticut, Strange, Swift, Trotter, Walker, White, and Williams.

"Those who voted in the negative were: Messrs. Bayard, Benton, Buchanan, Clay of Kentucky, Clayton, Davis, Fulton, Hubbard, Knight, Linn, Prentiss, Robinson, Sevier, Smith of Indiana, Tipton, Webster, Young."

་

and read a third time?' it was determined in the ndgative-yeas 15, nays 20.

"Those who voted in the affirmative are Messrs. Bayard, Clay of Kentucky, Crittenden, Fulton, Grundy, Knight, Linn, Lumpkin, Lyon, McKean, Merrick, Prentiss, Robinson, Sevier, Swift.

"Those who voted in the negative are Messrs. Allen, Buchanan, Clay of Alabama, Clayton, Hubbard, King, Mouton, Nicholas, Niles, Norveli, Roane, Ruggles, Smith of Connecticut, Strange, Trotter, Wall, White, Williams, Wright, Young.'

How many of the Opposition were found voting against this expenditure?

In page 519 would be found that the bill making appropriations for building light-houses, light-boats, beacon lights, buoys, and for making surveys; the question on taking up this bill was decided yeas 23, nays 14.

"The yeas were Messrs. Bayard, Clay of Kentucky, Clayton, Cuthbert, Davis, Hubbard, King, Knight, Lyon, McKean, Mouton, Nicholas, Niles, Norvell, Prentiss, Rives, Ruggles, Smith of Connecticut, Smith of Indiana, Tallmadge, Wall, Williams, and Wright.

"Those who voted in the negative were Messrs. Allen, Benton, Clay of Alabama, Crittenden, Fulton, Lumpkin, Merrick, Pierce, Preston, Roane, Robinson, Sevier, White, and Young."

How many of the Opposition, Mr. S. asked, were found voting against this measure. At a very late period of the last night of the session, he rose fer he purpose of stopping this bill, but it being found that a quorum was not present, he was prevailed upon not to persist in calling for the yeas and nays, as it would have put a stop to all the other business of the Senate.

The next vote to which he would advert, was the bill explanatory of the act regulating the pay and emoluments of the brevet officers.

"On the question Shall this bill be engrossed and read a third time?' it was determined in the affirmative-yeas 20, nays 18.

"Those who voted in the affirmative were Messrs. Allen, Bayard, Benton, Clay of Alabama, Clay of Kentucky, Clayton, Crittenden, Cuthbert, Fulton, Knight, Merrick, Nicholas, Norvell, Preston, Rives, Roane, Ruggles, Tallmadge, Trotter, and Wall.

"Those who voted in the negative are, Messrs. Brown, Grundy, Hubbard, King, Lumpkin, Lyon. Mouton, Niles, Pierce, Prentiss, Robinson, Smith

of Connecticut, Smith of Indiana, Strange, White, Williams, Wright, and Young."

How many of the Opposition, Mr. S. asked, voted against this bill?

The harbor bill, Mr. S. continued, came up at half past four o'clock on the 6th of July, on motion of Mr. DAVIS. Mr. S. here read from the journal as follows:

"On motion by Mr. DAVIS, that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the bill to provide for certain harbors, and for the removal of obstrucions in, and at the mouths of, certain rivers, and or other purposes, during the year 1838, it was letermined in the affirmative-yeas 18, nays 11. "Those who voted in the affirmative were, Messrs. Bayard, Clayton, Crittenden, Davis, Hubbard, Lyon, Merrick, Niles, Norvell, Robbins, Sevier, Smith of Indiana, Southard, Tallmadge, Tipton, Webster, Williams, Wright.

"Those who voted in the negative were, Messrs. Brown, Clay of Alabama, Fulton, King, Lumpkin, Nicholas, Pierce, Preston, Trotter, Wall, White."

How many of the Opposition voted against takng up this bill, which involved such heavy expenitures?

Mr. S. said he would trouble the Senate with ne more case, and that was the Indian appropriaion bill, to which Mr. WHITE offered an amendnent appropriating $150,000 for subsistence and xpenses of such Indians west of the Mississippi, who, by reason of the recent emigration, &c. were nable to subsist themselves.

"Those who voted in the affirmative were Messrs. Bayard, Benton, Buchanan, Clayton, Crittenden, Cuthbert, Davis, Fulton, King, Linn, Mouton, Nicholas, Preston, Rives, Roane, Robinson, Se vier, Smith of Indiana, Southard, Tallmadge, Tipon, Webster, White.

"Those who voted in the negative were Messrs. Allen, Brown, Clay of Alabama, Clay of Kenucky, Hubbard, Niles, Norvell, Pierce, Robbins, Ruggles, Smith of Connecticut, Strange, Wall, Williams."

How many of the Opposition were found voting gainst this bill? He had no doubt of the fact, that he could go through the whole journal, and proluce similar results. In truth, almost any proposition would meet the views of some few friends of he Administration. But let the facts go before the country; he wished to produce no false impression. If the charge of extravagance recoiled on the Opposition, why let it be known. His only object in making this explanation was to meet the challenge of the Senator from Massachusetts.

After some remarks from Mr. ALLEN,

Mr. BENTON explained that he had just examined the journals of last session, and found that the amendment to the bill which brought in this class of pensioners by which the pension list was swelled up some two or three millions, was made and adopted not only without the yeas and nays, but without even a division. It was thus seen that an affair of this magnitude crept into their legislation without being noticed by any Senator present.

A motion was made by Mr. CRITTENDEN to amend the amendment by inserting, "and provided, further, that the act of July 7, 1838, be repealed after the 3d of March, 1839."

On motion by Mr. PRESTON,
The Senate then adjourned.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
TUESDAY, December 18, 1838.

The first business in order was the motion made yesterday by Mr. Wise not to receive the petition presented by Mr. REED from certain inhabitants of Nantucket, praying Congress to open international relations with the Republic of Hayti.

Mr. GRENNELL, who was entitled to the floor, addressed the House at some length in support of the right of petition-a right, he insisted, which had never been denied by the veriest despot on earth. He then expatiated on the great advantages that would accrue to this country by opening commercial negotiations with, and acknowledging the independence of Hayti, where we now labored under great disadvantages, owing to the inequality of duties between goods carried in American vessels

and in those of other nations which had recognised the nationality of that Republic. Mr. G. admitted that it did look to one sort of abolition, and that alone, viz: the abolition of national distinctions founded on color, to which he was at a loss to conceive any possible objection.

Mr. FILLMORE expressed a hope that the question would be taken one way or the other, so as to allow other petitions to be presented.

Mr. LOOMIS then demanded the previous question.

Mr. WISE moved to lay the subject on the table, which took precedence of the demand for the previous question.

Mr. REED called for the yeas and nays, which were ordered.

Mr. CUSHING inquired whether, if Mr. WISE'S motion prevailed, it would not be, in substance, equivalent to refusing to receive the petition?

The CHAIR replied that the petition would remain in the hands of the gentleman offering to present it, and the motion to receive would lie on the table, subject to be taken up at any future time the House might feel disposed to do so.

Mr. CUSHING. Then, in point of fact, the petition will not have been received?

The CHAIR. It will not.

The question being taken, was decided in the ne. gative-yeas 65, nays 121, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Banks, Boon, Bynum, John Calhoon, Cambreleng, W. B. Campbell, John Campbell, Carter, Chapman, Cheatham, Cleveland, Clowney, Coles, Connor, Craig, Crockett, Cushman, Dawson, Dennis, Glascock, James Graham, Grantland, Graves, Griffin, Hamer, Harrison, Hawkins, Haynes, Jabez Jackson, Jenifer, Henry Johnson, Wm. Cost Johnson, John W. Jones, Legare, Lewis, Lyon, Mallory, James M. Mason, Martin, Abraham McClellan, Miller, Montgomery, Pearce, Pope, Pratt, Rencher, Rhett, John Robertson, Augustine H. Shepperd, Charles Shepard, Shields, Southgate, Stanly, Stuart, Stone, Taliaferro, John White, Lewis Williams, Sherrod Williams, Joseph L. Williams, C. H. Williams, Wise, Word, and Yell-65.

NAYS-Messrs. Adams, Alexander, Andrews, Atherton, Ayerigg, Beatty, Beirne, Bell, Bicknell, Biddle, Birdsall, Bond, Borden, Briggs, Bronson, Buchanan, Wm. B. Calhoun, Casey, Chambers, Chaney, Childs, Coffin, Corwin, Cranston, Cushing, Darlington, Davee, Davies, De Graff, Dromgoole, Duncan, Dunn, Evans, Everett, Ewing, Farrington, Fairfield, Richard Fletcher, Isaac Fletcher, Fillmore, Foster, Fry, James Garland, Giddings, Wm.Graham, Grant, Grennell, Haley, Hall, Hammond, Harlan, Harper, Hastings, Henry, Herod, Hopkins, Howard, Hubley, Ingham, Thomas B. Jackson, Joseph Johnson, Nathaniel Jones, Keim, Kemble, Klingensmith, Leadbetter, Lincoln, Loomis, Marvin, Samson Mason, May, Maxwell, McKay, McKennan, Menefee, Mercer, Morgan, Samuel W. Morris, Murray, Naylor, Noyes, Ogle, Parmenter, Parris, Paynter, Peck, Petriken, Phelps, Potts, Putnam, Rariden, Randolph, Reed, Ridgway, Rives, Edward Robinson, Russell, Saltonstall, Sheffer, Sheplor, Sibley, Slade, Snyder, Spencer, Stratton, Taylor, Thomas, Tillinghast, Toland, Toucey, Turney, Underwood, Vail, Vanderveer, Webster, Weeks, Albert S. White, Whittlesey, Jared W. Williams, Worthington, and Yorke-121.

So the House refusing to lay the subject on the table, the question recurred on the demand for the previous question, which was seconded, and the main question ordered.

The main question, being "Shall this petition be received by the House?" was then propounded.

Mr. CUSHMAN asked for the yeas and nays thereon, which, being ordered, were--yeas 157, nays 32, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Adams, Alexander, John W. Allen, Andrews, Atherton, Avcrigg, Banks, Beatty, Beirne, Bell, Bicknell, Biddle, Birdsall, Bond, Boon, Borden, Bronson, Buchanan, William B. Calhoun, Cambreleng, William B. Campbell, Carter, Casey, Chambers, Chaney, Cheatham, Childs, Cleveland, Clowney, Coffin, Connor, Corwin, Craig, Crary, Cranston, Cushing, Cushman, Darlington, Davee, Davies, De Graff, Dromgoole,

Duncan, Dunn, Edwards, Evans, Everett, Ewing, Farrington, Richard Fletcher, Isaac Fletcher, Fillmore, Foster, Fry, Jas. Garland, Giddings, Goode, William Graham, Grantland, Grant, Graves, Gray, Grennell, Haley, Hall, Hammond, Hamer, Harlan, Harrison, Harper, Hastings, Henry, Herod, Holt, Hopkins, Howard, Hubley, Ingham, T. B. Jackson, J. Jackson, H. Johnson, J. Johnson, N. Jones, J. W. Jones, Keim, Kemble, Kennedy, Klingensmith, Leadbetter, Lincoln, Loomis, Marvin, S. Mason, Maxwell, McKay, R. McClellan, A. McClellan, McKennan, Menefee, Mercer, Milligan, Mitchell, Montgomery, Morgan, Murray, Naylor, Noyes, Ogle, Parker, Parmenter, Parris, Paynter, Pearce, Peck, Petrikin, Phelps, Plumer, Potts, Pratt, Putnam, Rariden, Randolph, Reed, Rencher, Ridgway, Rives, E. Robinson, Rumsey, Russell, Saltonstall, Sheplor, Sibley, Slade, Snyder, Southgate, Spencer, Stuart, Stratton, Taylor, Thomas, Tillinghast, Toland, Toucey, Turney, Underwood, Vail, Vanderveer, Wagener, Webster, Weeks, A. S. White, John White, Whittlesey, S. Williams, J. W. Williams, J. L. Williams, C. H. Williams, Worthington, and Yorke-157.

NAYS-Messrs. John Calhoon, John Campbell, Coles, Crockett, Dawson, Dennis, Glascock, Jas. Graham, Griffin, Hawkins, Haynes, Jenifer, W. Cost Johnson, Legare, Lewis, Lyon, Mallory, Martin, Miller, Pope, Rhett, J. Robertson, A. H. Shepperd, Chas. Shepard, Shields, Stanly, Stone, Towns, Lewis Williams, Wise, Word, and Yell _32.

So the petition was received.

Mr. REED then moved to refer it to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Mr. STEWART moved to lay the petition on

the table.

Mr. REED demanded the yeas and nays on that motion, which, being ordered, were-yeas 84, nays 105, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Atherton, Aycrigg, Banks, Beatty, Beirne, Bynum, John Calhoon, William B. Campbell, John Campbell, Carter, Chambers, Chaney, Chapman, Cheatham, Cleveland, Clowney, Coles, Connor, Craig, Crockett, Dawson, Dennis, Farrington, Glascock, James Graham, Grantland, Griffin, Hall, Halsted, Hammond, Hamer, Harrison, Hawes, Hawkins, Haynes, Hubley, Jabez Jackson, Henry Johnson, Joseph Johnson, William Cost Johnson, Nathaniel Jones, John W. Jones, Keim, Legare, Lewis, Lyon, James M. Mason, Martin, Maury, Robert McClellan, Abraham McClellan, Menefee, Miller, Montgomery, Moore, Parker, Paynter, Pearce, Petrikin, Pope, Pratt, Rencher, Rhett, Rives, John Robertson, Rumsey, Augustine H. Shepperd, Charles Shepard, Shields, Sheplor, Southgate, Stanley, Stuart, Stone, Taliaferro, Titus, Towns, Wagener, Lewis Williams, Sherrod Williams, Christopher H. Williams, Wise, Word, Worthington, and Yell-84.

NAYS-Messrs. Adams, Alexander, John W. Allen, Anderson, Andrews, Bicknell, Biddle, Bond, Borden, Briggs, Bronson, Buchanan, William B. Calhoun, Casey, Clark, Coffin, Corwin, Cranston, Cushing, Cushman, Darlington, Davee, Davies, De Graff, Droomgoole, Duncan, Dunn, Edwards, Evans, Everett, Richard Fletcher, Isaac Fletcher, Fillmore, Foster, Fry, Giddings, Goode, William Graham, Grant, Gray, Grennell, Haley, Harlan, Harper, Hastings, Henry, Herod, Hopkins, Howard, Ingham, Thomas B. Jackson, Jenifer, Kemble, Kennedy, Klingensmith, Leadbetter, Lincoln, Loomis, Marvin, Sampson Mason, McKennan, Milligan, Morgan, Murray, Naylor, Noble, Noyes, Ogle, Parmenter, Peck, Phelps, Plumer, Potts, Putnam, Rariden, Randolph, Reed, Ridgway, Edward Robinson, Russell, Saltonstall, Sheffer, Sibley, Slade, Snyder, Spencer, Stratton, Taylor, Thomas, Tillinghast, Toland, Toucey, Turney, Underwood, Vail, Webster, Weeks, Albert S. White, John White, Whittlesey, Jared W. Williams, Joseph L. Williams, and Yorke-105.

So the House refused to lay the petition on the table; and it was then referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Mr. WISE said, being in a minority of 32, he gave up the fight, and withdrew his motion made