Mr. President, I did not rise solely for the purpose of expressing my opinion upon these resolutions. The honorable Senator who moved them made their discussion the occasion of stating that our country was at present naked and defenceless; that this was well known at home and throughout all Europe; that we were threatened with a war with France, our ancient ally, who had already sent a fleet upon our coast to overawe our deliberations; and that the reason why the country is thus naked and defenceless is because a majority of the Senate voted against an appropriation of three millions of dollars inserted in the fortification bill of the last session, and thus occasioned the loss of the whole bill.

By the way, what has become of this fleet of observation? I have seen that it was ordered to rendezvous at Brest; but whether it, or the governor spoken of, has reached the West Indies, or our coast, I have not seen. Suppose it to have arrived; may it not be that the object is not to overawe our deliberations, but to protect the interest of France against any attack that may be made on her commerce? Overawe Congress! France, I hope, knows the character of our people better. If she does not, I feel very sure no member of either House will disgrace his station by giving any vote which can derogate from the character of those he represents. I am one of those who voted against that appropriation, and against whom the charge is made. Against this accusation I might well plead a former acquittal, by the only tribunal competent to try me. This accusation was made in my own State; those to whom only I am accountable for my conduct here have passed upon it, and their unanimous verdict of acquittal I presented the other day, and it now remains on the files of the Senate. But I scorn to rely on that plea. I have a right to a separate trial, to plead not guilty, and to give the special

matter in evidence.

I do not feel that I, or any of those with whom I voted, are answerable for the loss of that bill. The vote I then gave was the result of my best judgment. I then approved of it, have done so ever since, and probably ever shall, so long as I am capable of reflecting on the affairs of this world.

It will be no part of my plan to attach censure to any one for his vote; all may have been governed by motives as worthy as I feel my own were. The time will soon come when we must all appear before that tribunal where there can be no mistake either in the evidence or the judgment which ought to be pronounced. To that tribunal, then, where my motives and conduct must be submitted, I cheerfully leave the decision of the motives of all others; but it is due to the country, and to myself, that I shake from my own skirts that blame which others seek to attach to me.

A few very plain views of this matter will, I think, satisfy every honest mind that the Senate are in no fault whatever.

The bill was originated in the House of Representatives, passed that body in the month of January, and was sent to the Senate. It then contained the whole sum esteemed by the Executive and the House necessary for fortifications and ordnance. This sum amounted to about $439,000. The Senate might have given its consent to the bill without any alteration. If it had done so, there would have been a grant of the sum just mentioned, and no more, to these objects.

The Senate, from the best information it possessed, believed the defence of the country required much larger appropriations, and, as it had a right to do, increased some of the items of appropriation, and added others, to the amount of about $430,000, thus increasing the grant from $439,000 to $869,000, and on the 24th day of February returned the bill to the House, for the purpose of ascertaining whether the Representatives |

[SENATE.

would agree to the increased grant made by the Senate. If the House had simply agreed to these amendments, the bill would have become a law, and there would have been an appropriation for fortifications, &c., equal to $869,000. The House did not do this, but retained the bill from the 24th of February till 8 o'clock in the night of the 3d of March, and then returned it to the Senate with a new section, as an amendment to the amendment of the Senate.

This new section has been read so often that every member, I presume, has it by memory. It is in these words: "That the sum of $3,000,000 be, and the same is hereby, appropriated, out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated, to be expended, in whole or in part, under the direction of the President of the United States, for the military and naval service, including fortifications and ordnance, and increase of the navy: Provided such expenditures shall be rendered necessary for the defence of the country prior to the next meeting of Congress."

For one, I declare, when this new section was read, I was as much surprised as I could have been if it had been dropped through the sky-light above our heads into the bill. The chairman of the Committee on Finance moved that the Senate disagree to the amend ment, and after some discussion, in which I took no part, the vote was taken, and stood twenty-nine to nineteen, mine among those in the affirmative.

At this time I knew not who had proposed this amendment in the House. The President had not asked, as far as I knew, for any such appropriation; there was no estimate sent from any Department on which to found it. My belief was the President did not wish it. I supposed it had been offered by some member opposed to the administration, who wished a free disbursement of money about our seaport towns, not caring what embarrassment was occasioned by such a loose appropriation; and that, in the hurry and confusion of a night session, it had been permitted to pass without any particu lar examination; and fancied that, so soon as their attention was particularly called to it, the House would recede from it, and the bill be passed as originally sent from the Senate.

In these conjectures I soon found I had been mistaken; for presently the bill was returned to the Senate, with a message stating that the House insisted on the amend ment. A motion was made that the Senate adhere to its disagreement. Before voting on that question I took the liberty of stating, very briefly, the reasons upon which my first was given, and upon which the second would be founded.

The President had sent no message asking such an appropriation; no estimates had been sent on which to found it. I believed it would have been the duty of the Executive to have sent such a message and estimates, and I farther believed he would faithfully discharge his duty, and therefore concluded he did not think the interest of the country required this additional grant. Besides this, the question was then pending and undecided before the French Chamber relative to the appropriation to comply with their treaty. I believed the strong probability was that it would pass, either then or at the next session; and that, with a little patience and good sense, we should receive the money without any warlike preparation. This was not only my own opinion, but the declared opinion of all with whom I had conversed.

I was what I professed to be, and ever had been-a friend to the administration; I had received no information that the President desired the appropriation, and I saw the section was so worded as to throw upon him a responsibility which he ought not to bear. The proviso left it discretionary with him whether the money should

SENATE.]

[JAN. 27, 1836.

The other source of information (the Globe) I did not apply to; I never read it till since I heard the gentleman's argument. If I had wished to read the newspaper for information, I had no leisure; my place was here, my duty here, and I had quite as much as I could attend to, without reading the Globe. If I had wished infor

Again: Suppose the money to be drawn, what was to be done with it? How much to the army, to the navy, to fortifications, and to ordnance? The section does not say; all is indefinite, vague, loose, and left to executive discretion.

These reasons were satisfactory to my own mind; I voted upon them. From the time the three millions was first mentioned in the Senate until we adjourned, I did not converse, as I believe, with a single member of the House upon this or any other subject; nor did I converse with any member of the Senate except my colleague, who joined me in the lobby behind the colonnade after our last vote. He was kind enough to speak favorably of my humble effort, and to express his regret that I had not made my argument before the first vote; but neither he nor any other member of either House ever intimated that the President wished such an appropriation.

I sincerely believed he did not; but in that it seems I was mistaken, and the first notice I had of my mistake was in his answer to a company of gentlemen in New York, who, after the rise of Congress, made him a tender of their services to defend the country. Whether I would have voted for the amendment in this loose shape, if I had known it comported with the views of the President, I do not pretend to say. I think I ought not, but am willing to state, because such is the truth, that if, upon reviewing my whole votes since honored with a seat in this chamber, any votes could be found which I would wish had not been given, the error is more attributable to my unbounded confidence in the Executive, and anxious desire to maintain him as far as I conscientiously could, than to any other cause whatever.

But it has been urged by the honorable Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. HUBBARD] that, on the 28th February, the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations of the House had given notice that when this bill should be taken up he would move an amendment appropriating one million of dollars for fortifications, and two millions for the navy; and that this accorded with the views of the Executive; and the gentleman adds, the members of the House no doubt made this the subject of conversation, and that Senators would probably secure the information; and, also, that in the Globe newspaper of 2d of March this notice is published, and has passed into the history of the country.

To all this I answer, that I did not hear of this notice. If any members with whom I associated heard of it, they never mentioned it in my presence. So far from it, one of my colleagues of the other House, probably as attentive as any member there, assures me he did not hear any such notice; and, when the amendment was under consideration, he had a curiosity to know whether the President desired the appropriation or not; that he conversed with a colleague sitting near him, and, neither of them knowing, he asked another of his colleagues, then chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, who told him the President did wish it, and added that he must say nothing about it. He did say nothing about it till since this discussion commenced during the present session. With the motives for this request to conceal I am not acquainted, therefore can say nothing.

into newspapers for facts, the Globe is the last place upon earth I should look into for the truth.

Again: If I had seen this notice, I am yet to learn that the President has any member of this House to act as his substitute, and to give that information to the Senate which we have a right, by the constitution, to receive from the Chief Magistrate himself.

Lastly: If I had seen that notice, I would not have supposed this section was intended by it. The notice was specific; one million for fortifications, and two millions for the navy. The amendment is for every thing relating to either sea or land, in a general mass, for the Executive to divide out, as well as he could, according to his discretion.

If the amendment had pursued the notice, it would have been well expressed; but, in the shape presented in the bill, I doubt whether the combined talents of the members of both Houses can frame a section on such subjects, more loose, more general, and more indefinite,

than it is.

It has been insisted by the Senator from New Hamp shire that this section did make a specific appropriation of this three millions of dollars, and was justified by precedents in the days of General Washington, President Jefferson, and of President Madison.

By the term specific appropriation, I understand that we mean the direction of the law to apply a given sum of money to the accomplishment of a particular object, in exclusion of all others.

If this idea be correct, this section has no claims whatever to the appellation of specific. The object of it was to place every thing at the discretion of the Executive. 1st. Whether the money should be used at all. 2d. If used, to apply it to any object he pleased, connected with the land or naval service, or defence.

The precedents referred to do not bear out the arguments. The first is an appropriation of $116,000 to pay the civil list. Here the sum must all be applied to the discharge of the civil list, and nothing else.

The next is $70,500 for fortifications. Although it is not said what sum should be applied to this or that fortification, yet the whole must be applied to fortifications, and to no other object. The third and last precedent rests on the same principles.

In the case now under consideration every thing is vague, indefinite, and left to executive discretion, and all this without any communication from the President, or any estimate whatever. I venture another remark, founded on what I heard said by a gentleman of much experience, not now among us, that during the period of a popular administration was the very time we must expect bad precedents to be set.

The precedents, incautiously set, when we have unbounded confidence in the Executive, are sure to be relied on, in aftertimes, by those who may wish to use power without regard to the public welfare.

This section, if adopted, would in aftertimes have furnished a precedent, by which any grant of the public money might be made, to be used at executive discretion.

I now put it to gentlemen with whom, on former occasions, I had generally acted, to say whether, if such a grant had been proposed during the late administration, a single man of them would have voted for it? No. It would have been said this money would be drawn and used, not for the public interest, but in jobs, to control and regulate public opinion.

Upon this matter, for one, I am perfectly satisfied that I, and those who voted with me, were right in not agreeing to this amendment: but the matter did not end with the vote of the Senate; the bill did not necessarily fall thereby. Let us pursue the subject, and see when, how, and where, the bill was finally lost.

The Senate returned the bill to the House, accompanied by a message, informing them that the Senate adhered to their disagreement to the amendment as to these three millions. Upon receiving this message, it was competent to the House to have receded from their amendment, and then the bill would have passed, appro priating the $869,000 proposed by the Senate; but, instead of that, they took a vote, and determined they would not recede. (House Journal, p. 518.) After this (Journal, p. 519) a motion was made that the House do ask a conference on the disagreeing votes. This motion was agreed to, and a committee of three appointed, and a message sent to the Senate, asking it to appoint a committee to confer on the subject. (This message is found in the Senate Journal, p. 236.) As soon as it was received, the Senate agreed to the conference, and appointed a committee on their part. (Journal, p. 237.) In the course of a short time the committee on the part of the Senate returned, and reported that the conferees had agreed to recommend to their respective Houses, as a substitute for the $3,000,000, an appropriation of three hundred thousand dollars for arming the fortifications, and an additional appropriation of five hundred thousand dollars for the repair and equipment of ships of war. (Senate Journal, p. 237.)

If each House had agreed to this report, then there would have been the appropriation of $869,000 contained in the bill as sent from the Senate, and an addition of $800,000, making, in all, instead of $439,000, which the Executive had asked, $1,669,000. Here the question recurs, whose fault is it that this was not done? Unquestionably not that of the Senate. Its conferees had acted promptly, and promptly made their report. The Senate could go no further; it could take no vote, as the bill and other papers had been carried to the House by the conferees on the part of the House. This was entirely wrong. When the conference ended, it was the duty of the conferees on the part of the House to have delivered the bill and papers to the conferees on the part of the Senate, who would have presented them when they made their report; the Senate could then have sanctioned the report by a vote which I have no doubt would have been unanimous, immediately sent the bill to the House, which could have given its sanction, and the bill become a law. Instead of this, the House conferees kept the bill and papers, and, by so doing, defeated the whole bill.

The rule upon this subject is so perfectly plain it cannot be mistaken. It is this: in all cases where a conference is asked before a vote of disagreement, the conferees of the House asking the conference, when it is over, must take the papers back with them, because their House is entitled to the next vote: but in every case where a conference is asked after a vote of disagreement, then, when the conference is over, the conferees of the House asking the conference must deliver over the bill and papers to the conferees of the other House, because that other House is entitled to the next vote.

In this case the Senate had voted to adhere to their disagreement to the amendment. The House had, after this, voted that they would not recede, and then proposed the conference; therefore, as the House had given the last vote, the Senate was entitled to the next; and, to enable them to give it, it was the duty of the conferees of the House to have given the papers to the conferees of the Senate, and, if they would not receive them, they might have been left in the committee room.

[SENATE.

This doctrine, so reasonable in itself, is laid down in Jefferson's Manual at 187, title Conference, in language too plain to be misunderstood, and it has been practised on by Congress in the cases with which I am acquainted. (See the case of the bill for the relief of Mr. Monroe, in Senate Journal, p. 374, of the session 1825 and 1826; and House Journal of the same session, pages 616 and 628.)

Let it not be supposed that the conferees of the two Houses were equally to blame for permitting the papers to remain with the conferees not entitled to them after the conference ended, because the conferees of the Senate did not know, and had no means of knowing, that the House had voted not to recede after the Senate had voted to adhere. Strange as the fact may seem, the truth is that the House, in its message to the Senate proposing the conference, omitted to state the fact that a vote not to recede had been taken after the House last received the bill. (See the message, Senate Journal, page 236.)

The conferees on the part of the House knew the fact, because their journal shows they were present and voted. (See the House Journal, pages 518, 519.)

The conferees of the House, having improperly taken the bill and papers, and thereby put it out of the power of the Senate to take any step whatever, are answerable for all the consequences.

I do not state this omission in the message by way of censure on the Clerk for any intentional wrong. All these matters relative to this bill took place in the night, in the confusion which occurred at the end of the session; and it is very seldom that the most temperate and prudent are as well qualified to do business, or have their wits as well about them, after a comfortable dinner, as they have in the early part of the day.

Mr. President, let us now see what the conferees of the House did with these papers, after taking them from the conference room. They returned to the House, and the chairman made no report whatever; the Senate waited from one or two hours, and, being able to hear nothing, sent a message respectfully calling the attention of the House to this subject. (See the House Journal, p. 530.) Then the chairman stated that the committee had returned at the time a vote was taken on a resolution providing for the payment of Mr. Letcher, by which it was ascertained there was not a quorum, and that the constitutional term had expired, and that for these reasons he had declined making a report. Mr. Lewis, another member of the committee, then took the papers and made the report, which was never acted on, and thus the matter ended.

The first reason assigned for not having made the report was the want of a quorum: this, it is said, was ascertained by the vote on the resolution just mentioned. The chairman ought to have put the House in possession of the report, as he found the House in session. Had he done so, no doubt it would have been acted on. The journal shows that much business was done afterwards, and a resolution reported by Mr. William Cost Johnson was adopted by the House. (See House Journal, from page 524 to 530.)

Now, if there was a quorum to do other business, to adopt other resolutions, how is it that there was not a quorum to receive and act on this report?

The remaining reason assigned is, that the constitutional term for which the members were elected had expired. In other words, it was after 12 o'clock the night of the 3d of March.

How can this be? There must have been some mistake on this point. If it was not too late to do the other business I have mentioned, how did it happen to be too late to make this report?

Again: The most certain information we have as to

time is derived from the statement of the honorable Senator from Virginia. He tells us he looked at his watch when the conferees left the Senate chamber, and it then wanted fifteen minutes of eleven. When they returned and made their report, he was not in, but returned shortly afterwards, and it was then twenty minutes after eleven. We may, therefore, suppose the conferees had returned about one quarter of an hour after eleven, leaving three quarters of an hour to have disposed of this bill before the hour of twelve o'clock arrived. There was, therefore, ample time, if the report had been made, to have disposed of this before our constitutional term expired, according to the strictest construction.

Mr. President, this is the eleventh session I have been here, and until last session I never knew of an important measure having failed because 12 o'clock had arrived. So far as I know, the universal course has been, if the business necessary to be done could not be finished before 12 o'clock, to go on and accomplish it, if it took till daylight. I well remember, on one occasion, at a short session, we sat all night, and before I got to my lodging place it was broad daylight.

There always have been some members who had conscientious scruples about sitting after 12 o'clock. always have and always shall respect men who act on such scruples, although I may differ with them in opinion. For myself, I have never felt any hesitation about voting after 12 o'clock, when the business required it. By the constitution, members of the House are elected for two years, the President and Vice President for four, and the Senators for six. The only difficulty is to ascertain when the term commences. The constitution does not fix it, but authorized the old Congress to do so. That Congress fixed the first Wednesday in March, 1789. That happened to be the 4th day of the month. Now, if we believe the first Congress met in the night at 12 o'clock the third of March, 1789, then our constitutional term will expire in the night at 12 o'clock of the 3d of March every second year, and the terms of the President and Vice President at the same hour every fourth year. But if we suppose Congress did not assemble earlier than 12 o'clock on the 4th of March, 1789, then, in truth, our constitutional two years, &c., do not expire till the same hour on the 4th of March, and we have our constitutional day as it was when light and darkness were first separated, and it was said the evening and the morning should be the first day.

I submit to gentlemen who have these scruples, whether it is not worth while to reflect maturely on this subject. If the term of Congress expires the night of the 3d of March, so must that of President and Vice President. This will always leave an interval of several hours, when we will have no President or Vice President. It appears to me those who framed the constitution did not so intend. It is easy to think of cases which would bear very hard upon such a construction. Suppose, shortly before the expiration of a presidential term, a man to be sentenced to be hanged at a federal court; afterwards it should be ascertained to a certainty that the person was innocent, and a messenger is sent for a pardon, but cannot reach the President till after 12 o'clock on the night of the 3d of March: is the man to be hanged because there is no President until a successor is sworn in? This ought not to be the construction. I apprehend the whole difficulty originates from our perplexing our minds with a legal fiction that there can be no fraction of a day. This, like every other fiction, must yield to fact when justice requires it.

In

A man sells a tract of land for a full consideration in the morning of the 4th of March, and conveys it. the afternoon he sells and conveys the same land to another person; both vendees cannot hold; and yet, ac

[JAN. 28, 1836.

cording to the idea produced by this fiction, both deeds were executed the first minute of the day, and are of equal date; but every man knows that this fiction would yield to fact, and that the first vendee would hold the land. Whether these reflections be altogether accurate or not, they have always satisfied me that I did not act unconscientiously, or assume powers I did not possess, when I voted in the night of the 3d of March, after 12 o'clock.

The honorable member from New Hampshire will perceive that the resolution he has read, which was adopted in the year 1790, does not remove the difficulty. That resolution only says the term expires on the 3d of March; but still the question recurs, when does the 3d of March end, according to the meaning of the constitution? To Senators on all sides I submit whether this crimination and recrimination for past acts or omissions is likely to produce dispositions now to act together harmoniously, and to endeavor to devise and perfect such measures as will most promote the interest and welfare of the country.

Mr. President, in every view I have been enabled to take of this whole subject, it has appeared to me that this bill was lost in the House, not in the Senate; that the Senate were right in the votes which a majority gave as to this sum of three millions. I was satisfied with my votes when I gave them, and am yet satisfied-more, I am proud of them. I feel that the author of my existence will approve of them, and, to use the language of a distinguished man, now no more, "I wish they were recorded in the centre of heaven, in characters as bright as the sun, that the whole world might read them." When Mr. WHITE had taken his seat,

Mr. GRUNDY said he wished to say a few words as soon as he could hear himself speak. At present, he was willing to yield the floor to any other gentleman desiring to be heard.

Mr. BUCHANAN rose to address the Senate; and, on his motion,

The Senate adjourned.

THURSDAY, JANUARY 28.

SLAVERY IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

Mr. SWIFT presented a petition from citizens of Vermont, praying for the abolition of slavery in the Dis

trict of Columbia.

On presenting this petition,

Mr. SWIFT rose and said that a portion of his constituents had intrusted to his care a memorial addressed to Congress, praying for the abolition of slavery and the slave trade within the District of Columbia, with instructions to present the same to the Senate; but being unwilling to become in any manner unnecessarily instrumental in promoting or prolonging the excitement prevailing here and elsewhere on this subject, he had been for weeks waiting the final action of the Senate on the motion of the honorable Senator from South Carolina, [Mr. CALHOUN,] that the Senate do not receive the memorial presented by the honorable Senator from Pennsylvania, [Mr. BUCHANAN,] containing the same petitions as the one intrusted to his (Mr. S's) care; and it was his intention, in case the Senate refused to receive that memorial, to withhold from the Senate the one from his constituents; at least, until he should receive further instructions from them on the subject. But as it is now very uncertain (said Mr. S.) when the final action of the Senate will be had on this motion, I do not feel at liberty longer to delay to fulfil the instructions of my constituents, and I am the more inclined not to delay, from the fact that the honorable Senator who presented the memorial now before the Senate moved, at the time of presenting it, its instant rejection; and as I