SENATE.] National Defence. on the 3d of March, at night, was not the true period. It is now insisted, however, that twelve o'clock on the 4th of March is the true time; and the argument in support of this is, that the first Congress met at twelve o'clock, on the 4th of March. This is not placing the question on the true ground; it is not when the Congress did meet, or when the President was qualified by taking the oath of office, but when did they have the constitutional right to meet? This certainly was, and is, in all future cases, on the 4th of March; and if the day commence, according to the universal acceptation and understanding of the country, at the first moment after twelve o'clock at night on the 3d of March, the constitutional right or power of the new Congress commences at that time, and if called by the Chief Magistrate to meet at that time, they might then qualify and open their session. There would be no use in arguing away the common understanding of the country, and it would seem as reasonable to maintain that the 4th❘ of March ended when the first Congress adjourned, as it is to say that it began when they met. From twelve o'clock at night until twelve o'clock at night is the mode of computing a day by the people of the United States, and I do not feel authorized to establish a different mode of computation for Congress. At what hour does Christmas commence? When does the first day of the year, or the first of January, commence? Is it at midnight or at noon? If the first day of a year or month begins and ends at midnight, does not every other day? Congress has always acted upon the impression that the 3d of March ended at midnight; hence that setting back of clocks which we have witnessed on the 3d of March at the termination of the short session. In using this argument, I do not wish to be understood as censuring those who have transacted the public business here after twelve o'clock on the 3d of March. From this error, if it be one, I claim no exemption. With a single exception, I believe, I have always remained until the final adjournment of both Houses. As to the President of the United States, he remained until after one o'clock on the 4th of March. This was making a full and fair allowance for the difference that might exist in different instruments for keeping time; and he then retired from his chamber in the Capitol. The fortification bill never passed Congress; it never was offered to him for his signature; he, therefore, can be in no fault. It was argued that many acts of Congress passed on the 4th of March, at the short session, are in our statute books, and that these acts are valid and binding. It should be remembered that they all bear date on the 3d of Maroh; and so high is the authenticity of our records, that, according to the rules of evidence, no testimony can be received to contradict any thing which appears upon the face of our acts. Mr. President, I now propose to say something of our present condition, in reference to our relations with France, and what are the prospects before us. For the last three years France has enjoyed the reduction of duties stipulated for in the treaty of the 4th of July, 1831. By this reduction she had gained or saved for her citizens upwards of three millions of dollars prior to the end of the year 1834, which, but for the treaty, would now be in the treasury of the United States. By this time she will have saved altogether five millions. has obtained and enjoyed all these benefits, and still fails and refuses to pay one cent of the five millions stipulated to be paid on her part; and what is the plea or ar gument she employs in justification of her conduct? She pleads a supposed insult as a set-off to a just debt--a debt acknowledged to be just in a treaty made by the executive branch of that Government, and signed by the King's own hand-a debt acknowledged to be just She [JAN. 28, 1836. by the Chamber of Deputies, after a full examination made by that body into the claims of our citizens. If further evidence of the justice of the claims of our citizens upon the French nation were needed, it is furnished by the records of the American board of commissioners, who were appointed by this Government, in pursuance of the treaty, to ascertain them. By the adjudications of that board, it appears that claims to the amount of upwards of nine millions of dollars have been established; so that but little more than one half of the principal, without interest, would have been received by these claimants, had the French nation complied strictly with its engagements: add to this that many of the claimants must have failed to establish their claims, from the unavoidable loss of testimony in the course of thirty years. I cannot perceive how any difficulty could ever have arisen, or any serious question have been made, among those who had a full opportunity of examining the subject, as to the justice of the claims of our citizens to the extent of five millions of dollars. But the French Government is not content with having heretofore withheld the payment of less than one half of our just claims; they refuse to pay any portion of it hereafter, unless our Government shall comply with a new and degrading condition prescribed by themselves; in the language of the Duke de Broglie, they will pay the money only "when the Government of the United States is ready to declare to us, (the French Government,) by addressing its claim to us officially, and in writing, that it regrets the misunderstanding which has arisen between the two countries; that this misunderstanding is founded on mistake, and that it never entered its intention to call in question the good faith of the French Government, nor to take a menacing attitude towards France." Upon this branch of the subject I hope there can be no diversity of opinion amongst us; I hope there is no heart beating in an American bosom that is willing that this country shall be thus degraded. The French Minister of Foreign Affairs here prescribes to the Government of the United States, not only the mode and manner, but the very language which is to be employed by this Government. He says, in the first place, that the apology required is to be addressed to the French Government officially, and it must be in writing, and of course signed by the President of the United States, or Secretary of State, and then follows the very terms and language which are to be used by the Government of the United States in this act of humiliation. And why is this to be done? To procure the payment of about one half of the amount justly due to our citizens. Sir, the French nation, in the most brilliant days of her late Emperor, could neither purchase, nor by the dread of its arms terrify, either the people or Government of the United States into so disgraceful an act. What is the pretext for this arrogant demand on the part of the French Government? It is that the Chief Magistrate of the United States, in his annual communication to Congress in 1834, gave a history, and a true one, too, of the transactions between France and this Government, which wounded the sensibilities of the French Government. It is not alleged that any misstatement was made in that message, that any expression or word was used which was not in strict accordance with the facts of the case, as they really existed. Did not France seize unlawfully the property of our citizens? Had she not confessed it, and acknowledged that she owed us a debt of five millions on that acccount? Had she not promised to pay this debt at certain periods, on the faith and word of her King? Had not some of those periods actually expired, not only without any provision to make payment, but with the positive refusal by her legislative Chambers to make provision? And what did the Presi dent say in his message? He stated these facts to the representatives of the people of the United States. Had he done less he would not have fully discharged his duty. France might feel mortified at the idea of being held so strictly to account by our young republic, but she had no right to complain, and much less to ask for an apology or explanation. It was the proper consequence of her neglect to pay her just debt. But, sir, I forbear to press this view of the subject further. There is another stronger light in which it ought to be considered. The French Government claim the right to interpose and interfere in our domestic consultations. This cannot be permitted so long as we are a sovereign and independent nation, and the present constitution endures. It is the duty of the President to communicate to Congres freely and fully upon all subjects, and more especially in relation to our foreign affairs, which are managed particularly under his guidance and direction. And, should any foreign nation be allowed to interpose between the President and Congress, and control the Chief Magistrate by the apprehension that it might take offence in his making a full and complete declaration of the facts, and his views as connected with them, in reference to such nation? If ever this should take place, I shall consider the independence of this nation as at an end, and the Government itself of no value. We all know that the present Chief Magistrate is the last man living who will ever dishonor his country by an act of this kind; and I hope, if there be one Senator here who would be willing to see the President of the United States commit so degrading an act, that he will come forward and avow it. I will go further: no man will ever be elected President of these United States who will so far forget the honor of his country and the high duties of his station as to think, for a moment, of doing an act which will not only disgrace him, but a whole nation of freemen. The French Government seem to have forgotten, or not well to have understood, the principles of our Government, or this unreasonable requirement on their part would never have been made, unless, indeed, they intended it as a mode of refusing to execute the treaty. Carry the principle out, and where will it lead us? We have not, by our constitution or frame of Government, given our President the power to declare war or issue letters of marque and reprisal, like the monarchs of Europe. He can only propose and discuss these measures in the first instance. He is not the Government for these purposes, but only a part of it. The Government has never made a declaration or done an act on these subjects; and until some resolution or act has passed the Senate and House of Representatives, and been approved by the President, the interests of no foreign nation can be affected. Each member of Congress is as much a member of the Government in declaring war, and issuing letters of marque and reprisal, as the President, and his single declaration is just as effective. If the principle asserted by France be sound, then may she demand explanations of any thing wounding to her pride which may be said here in debate, and the nation may be held responsible, not for the acts and declarations of its Government, but for the assertions of each individual of which it is constituted. Such a proposition would be monstrous, and can never be permitted in the practice of our Government; and if France persists in her demands, I am unable to say when or how this controversy may end. In this state of things, what course does wisdom point out? To prepare for the worst that may come is certainly the true course. But it is said by the gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. CALHOUN,] that, if we arm, we instantly make war: it is war. If this be so, we are placed in a most humiliating situation. Since this con [SENATE. troversy commenced, the French nation has armed; they have increased their vessels of war; they have equipped them; they have enlisted or pressed additional seamen into the public service; they have appointed to the command of this large naval force one of their most experienced and renowned naval officers; and this squadron, thus prepared, and for what particular purpose we know not, is now actually in the neighborhood of the American coast. I admit this proceeding on the part of the French Government is neither war nor just cause of war on our part; but, seeing this, shall we be told, if we do similar acts, designed to defend our own country, we are making war? As I understand the public law, every nation has the right to judge for itself of the extent of its own military and naval armaments, and no other nation has a right to complain or call it in question. It appears to me that, although the preparations and armaments of the French Government are matters not to be excepted to, still they should admonish us to place our country in a condition in which it could be defended in the event the present difficulties between the two nations should lead to hostilities. I listened with great attention to the Senator from New Jersey, [Mr. SOUTHARD,] while he was pointing out to the Senate the extreme weakness of our naval force, and showing the superiority of the French in this respect. The conclusion to which his argument led me was, that the disparity was too great, and that this inequality ought not to be permitted longer to remain. Gentlemen tell us that there is no danger of war between the two nations. This may be true; I hope it is so; but what that Government may do which owes a just debt, has the money in her coffers, and refuses to pay it until the creditor Government shall come forward and ask pardon for having insisted on the payment in the language of truth and justice, I will not undertake to determine; and, further, when this refusal to pay a just debt is attempted to be justified by an assertion of the right on the part of the French Government to interfere in our domestic consultations and deliberations. The best security we have against war, in my humble opinion, is, that the French Government is too far in the wrong. There cannot be a civilized nation on the earth that has an accurate knowledge of the history of this misunderstanding between the two countries, but will pronounce at once that the honor and the justice of the French nation both require that she should comply with her honest engagements by the payment of the money, and that it cannot stand justified in withholding it, or attempting to substitute a supposed affront or insult for actual payment. When error and passion prevail, it is impossible to say to what extremes they may hurry nations as well as men. Certain it is that, if French honor requires the explanation which has been demanded, it will not be satisfied with retaining the five millions of dollars which that nation owes us. I will not think so meanly of them as to suppose that they will take the money as an equivalent for their honor, and intend to put up with what they may consider an insult, because they can withhold the payment. On the contrary, if they have any right to demand an explanation at all, it will not be satisfied by keeping the money, and would be strengthened by its payment. Indeed, it is surprising that the ministry of France, on the admission that they were right as to the message, did not perceive that it was incumbent on them, as honorable men, first to pay their debt, and then to ask an explanation. This is what men of honor and honesty in private life would think necessary; and, unless they abandon the ground assumed by them, they must continue to insist on an explanation, even should the money be paid; and may, with the same reason that they make the demand, make war on us if it should be refused. SENATE.] National Defence. If it be asked whether I would now, under existing circumstances, be willing to declare war against France, I answer, emphatically, I would not. I am desirous that France should reconsider the principle that she has assumed, and some of the steps she has taken, and see whether the explanations given by our minister, Mr. Livingston, whether the disavowal which he made of any intention on the part of the Executive of this country to insult or menace that Government, all which has received the sanction of the Chief Magistrate of the United States, may not be deemed satisfactory. Nay, further, I am willing to wait until the last annual communication of the President of the United States shall be seen by the French Government. It contains a fair and just exposition of the views entertained by the Executive at the time of making the communication complained of. If the French Government shall choose to consider that satisfactory, I shall be gratified; for no man would deplore a war between the two countries more than I should. The French Government had no right to take exception to the communication made to Congress by the President in December, 1834. The recommendation contained in the message was not carried out by any action of Congress, and until all the departments of a Government, whose consent is necessary for the consummation of an act of an offensive character towards another nation, concur in the act or declaration, it is not the act of the nation, and cannot form a topic of discussion between the two Powers. Until the consent of all the departments of this Government, that is, the President and Congress, shall have been given as to what shall be proposed by either, it is a consultative proceeding, domestic in its nature and character, and no foreign nation can be permitted to interpose between them, and check the freedom of their communications to each other. When their consultations shall eventuate in acts or declarations affecting the interests of other nations, then, and not until then, has any foreign nation, who may be affected by it, a right to call for or demand explanations, or make it, in anywise, a subject of diplomatic discussions. I would now ask gentlemen if the French Government shall remain in its present erroneous position, and continue to insist on a demand which is inadmissible, and which is wholly inconsistent with our political institutions and form of Government? Whether that nation shall enjoy all the beneficial effects guarantied to it by the treaty of 1834, while not one of the stipulations on its part has been complied with? I can only answer, for myself, I will not consent thus to degrade my country. After every reasonable expectation shall have failed of the fulfilment of the treaty on their part, I shall be in favor of such measures as shall be best calculated to preserve the honor, dignity, and independence, of the United States. What those measures should be, may, in the mean time, depend upon the course of conduct which may be adopted by the French Government. I have now presented to the Senate my views upon all the prominent subjects which may have been introduced into this discussion, and conclude by expressing a most sincere hope that our nation may not again be visited by the evils consequent upon war; but war, with all its direful consequences, is preferable to peace, if it can be maintained only by national degradation, or by a surrender of liberty and independence. When Mr. GRUNDY had concluded, Mr. HILL, of New Hampshire, addressed the Senate as follows: Mr. President: Much has been said to mystify the question before the Senate, and to make it appear that a majority of the last Senate is not solely responsible for the rejection of the bill conditionally appropriating three millions of dollars for the defence of the country. [JAN. 28, 1836. Mystification will not answer the purpose; the responsibility will rest, as it now rests, where it truly belongs. It was with a high interest that I have watched the progress of appropriations in past sessions of the Senate. I have seen those appropriations delayed in the Senate for weeks, on frivolous pretexts: this delay had no other real object than the forcing the House of Representatives to come up to some favorite doctrine of the Senate, or for some other political manoeuvre. Has not the Senate repeatedly held up the appropriation bills for the purpose of forcing the Executive into the appointment or non-appointment of certain officers? Has it not been threatened to defeat the general appropriation bill if the House of Representatives would not yield to the wishes of the Senate? Why was it that the principal appropriation bills of the last session, which passed the House at an earlier period than usual; why was it that these bills were held up to the very last week of the session? Why was this very fortification bill kept thirty-four days in the Senate? No, not in the Senate, but the greater part of the time in the hands of the chairman of the Committee on Finance? Was it not done avowedly for the purpose of compelling the House to pass such subjects as a majority of the Senate should choose to force on them? Look at the general appropriation bill; that bill was held up for weeks in this body, and did not pass until the last moment of the session-it did not pass, leaving time for the President of the United States to read the bill, before the twenty-third Congress was actually defunct; and so long was it in the possession of the chairman of the Committee on Finance, that I never had an opportunity to read the perfected bill before I was called upon to vote on the question of its passage. These bills were all furnished by the House, leaving the Senate ample time to discuss and understand them; but so exclusively did the then Committee on Finance of the Senate take the control, that even the Senate itself could not consider and pass upon them without a violation of the joint rules. The loss of the fortification bill was clearly owing to the neglect of the Senate to bring that bill to an ultimate decision. In the first place, the Senate insisted on adding to that bill appropriations which had been voted down by yeas and nays in the House-it insisted on adding appropriations, suiting the motives of particular members, and local in their character, which had not been recommended by the proper department. The House, being thus forced to take the bill against its own expressed will, again proposed to the Senate a more general appropriation, which might be applied by the Executive at points where expenditures would be most useful. Instead of making appropriations that had not been called for by the proper department, either in Boston harbor or in the Delaware river, the House proposed three millions of dollars to be expended at the discretion of the Executive in the manner that might best meet the state of things existing. The House proposed this at that point of the session when information had just been received that the relations with a foreign Government were in a critical state-when it was too late for particular legislation; and when the obvious effect of neglecting such appropriation would be to invite foreign aggression. The first question is, was the appropriation proposed by the House a reasonable proposition? Those who thought the public good required that appropriation, in either House of Congress, ought not to be reproached with having defeated the fortification bill. At no time did they interpose an objection to it in any shape. It was those who opposed that bill, it was that majority in the Senate which held up this bill to the last moment; which even refused, at that moment, to carry into effect the strong decision of that branch of the Legislature whose peculiar right and province it is to make appropriations of this sort; it was that majority which is responsible for the loss of this bill. It has been contended that the session of the Legislature should have continued until the 4th of March at noon; and that the President of the United States ought to have remained here to sign bills until that time. The President gave one full hour for the variation of the clock. He remained, as I have occasion to know, in the Capitol until after one o'clock. The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. SOUTHARD] says President Jackson did not, on this occasion, follow the example of an illustrious predecessor. The great Washington, he informs us, (on what authority he does not tell us,) was called up from his bed, and in his flannel, on one occasion, signed some twenty bills; and that these bills became important laws, that bave ever since been in force. This statement of the Senator, if it prove any thing, proves too much. If Washington did not consider the time of Congress as having expired at twelve o'clock, why was he in bed at two o'clock? Or, if the time of Congress did not expire till twelve o'clock at noon of the subsequent day, why did he get out of bed at all, when he had ample time to examine the bills at his leisure, before the time expired? It is said to have been the practice in both branches to set back the clocks at the expiration of the 3d of March. I was witness to the clock in the Senate chamber having been set back more than an hour, on the last night of the last session; the hand of the clock pointed at twelve, after the hour of one had arrived. Now, if it had been the practice to continue the session until daylight or noon of the 4th of March, where was the necessity for setting the clock back? The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. WHITE] thinks he sat here on one occasion at the close of a Congress until daylight. I well, recollect, probably the same time. It was in 1833, three years ago. The 3d of March was Sunday; and on that occasion the President of the United States continued in the Capitol until daylight, not of the morning of Monday the 4th, but of Sunday the 3d. Other sittings after midnight will refer themselves to the expiration of the first session, when the power of each member extending to the second session to act was undoubted. If any member knows that Congress and the President acted after twelve on the night of the 3d of March, of the second session, or what purported to be twelve o'clock, let them put their finger on that time, and show by circumstances that the Congress did hold on its session into the time for which the next Congress was elected. If they can show us an instance of this kind, they will show what, in my opinion, was a violent dereliction of duty. That it was generally believed any act done after the time was illegal, is proved by the practice of setting back the clock an hour, and making one o'clock in the morning the nominal time of twelve at night. The assumption that the power of Congress to act beyond the term for which it is elected is a legitimate power, is urged with a pertinacity that will not admit of denial. It is insisted on by almost every person who has spoken on one side; and it is insisted on because, if the assumption be not conceded, neither the House of Representatives nor the President can be responsible for the failure of the fortification bill. Deny the right of Congress to sit after midnight, deny the right of the President to retire and sign no bills after midnight, and the last Senate must take the responsibility, not only of defeating the three million appropriation, but of defeating every item in the fortification bill. The sixteenth and seventeenth standing rules of the two Houses of Congress provide that no bill that shall have passed one House shall be sent for concur. [SENATE. rence to the other on either of the last three days of the session;" and that "no bill or resolution that shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall be presented to the President of the United States for his approbation on the last day of the session." These standing rules were made with the express view of preventing confusion at the close of the session, and to give the President an opprtunity to inform himself of the nature and contents of the several bills placed before him for his approval. If the two Houses of Congress have ever held on to their session after twelve o'clock at night, at the close of the session, it has probably been on the last day on which, by the rules, either House of Congress could act on bills. It will be perceived, in this case, that Congress would not act after its constitutional time expired, and that the holding over would violate the rules only. These rules have of late become in effect a dead letter, as have many other rules of the Senate; which, requiring for their suspension the unanimous consent of the Senate, have been set aside by a simple vote of a majority of the Senate. The confusion attending the last hours of a sitting of either House is disagreeable to all friends of fair legislation; it is a most propitious moment for those who press claims and measures that will not admit of discussion. I stood in my place at the close of the last session, for more than one hour after the time of the Congress expired. After the House of Representatives had finished their business, and after the hour of one o'clock had arrived, different propositions were made and brought before the Senate, involving large expenditures, to be defrayed out of the contingent funds of the Senate. These propositions were intended to give a defunct printer of the Senate additional jobs of printing. I will read one extract from the Senate journal, presenting the extraordinary spectacle of a Senator, dead in law, acting for the resuscitation of a partisan printer, whose term had been superseded by the election of a new printer to the Senate. After twelve o'clock at night, Mr. Poindexter submitted the following resolution: Resolved, That the reports of commissioners for adjusting land titles, made to the Secretary of the Treasury since the adjournment of the last session of Congress, be printed, with the documents in relation to the public lands ordered to be printed at the last session of Congress." The Senator from Missouri, [Mr. Benton, ] despairing of being able otherwise to defeat the project of expending, by the action of the Senate alone, some one or two hundred thousand dollars, in addition to the enormous jobs that had already been voted, then told me he was determined to talk down this project; and he did talk and read extracts from the journals after twelve o'clock at night, until he compelled the defunct Senate to lay the project on the table. [At this point Mr. BENTON rose, and Mr. HILL giving way, Mr. B. reminded him that he defeated these printing jobs after midnight, and by speaking against time. He had avowed his determination to speak out the session; and after speaking, as he said, a long time against time, be found that time stood still; that our clock obstinately refused to pass the hour of twelve; and thereupon addressed the presiding officer, (Mr. Tyler, the President pro tem.,) to call to his attention the refractory disposition of the clock; which, in fact, had been set back by the officers of the House, according to common usage on the last night, to hide from ourselves the fact that our time was at an end. The presiding officer (Mr. B. said) directed an officer of the House to put forward the clock to the right time, which was done, and not another vote was taken that night, except the vote to adjourn.] SENATE.] National Defence. Mr. HILL thanked Mr. B. for reminding him of these facts, and said, to the perseverance of that Senator in speaking against time, in having the clock set forward to the true time, and in avowing his determination to speak until the Senate adjourned, and finally compel ling the defunct Senators to yield up their places on the floor-to that perseverance of the honorable Senator which never tires on any becoming occasion, it is due that from one to two hundred thousand dollars of the public money was prevented from going into the allgrasping jaws of that cormorant, who has not fattened, but grown lean and haggard, with the continued feeding of a majority of the late Senate of the United States, Duff Green. Mr. Bibb's proposition was to print the usual number of the legislative and executive journal from the foundation of the Government in 1789, with a copious index to each volume, and also an analytical index to the whole. The usual number was one thousand and ten copies. There are fifty volumes of legislative journals, and three volumes of executive journals. The expense of this printing, at the Congress prices, which are much higher than printing any where else, (being pay as for manuscript, when this and other reprints were from printed copy,) would have been at least $100,000. Mr. Webster's project was to reprint the Blue Book from the commencement, beginning in 1816, and published every two years; ten volumes of rule and figure work, last volume four hundred and fifty pages, at an expense of between four and five dollars per page, at the lowest estimate, $16,000. Mr. Poindexter's project was a continuation of printing of reports of commissioners for adjusting land titles, which had already cost sixty or seventy thousand dollars, and which had been previously printed under an order of the Senate, and not worth one straw to any body; the continuation, of no more value than the main work, would have made several volumes, and would have cost some twenty or thirty thousand dollars. The above project of printing reports went through the Senate at the same session, as did the project of Mr. Moore, of Alabama, to print certain Indian reports, which Row amount to three large octavo volumes, delivered at this session, and which are really of no value even to a groor trunkmaker. Mr. Preston's project, which passed at the last hour of the session, forced through by a vote of the majority, was to print a list of pensioners on the rolls of the Treasury Office. He had before got through a resolution for printing the rolls in the War Department, which had been two years in printing, and are now just completed, making three large octavo volumes of rule and figure work, of about one thousand pages each. The whole expense of printing these lists will not be less than thirty thousand dollars; and, for all practical uses, these volumes are of less value than any old almanac. This motion of Mr. Preston was the last question taken; it was taken after twelve o'clock, and was carried by surprise. Mr. Poindexter's motion next came up, when Mr. Benton commenced speaking. cer [JAN. 28, 1836. character to know that a blow, and generally a fatal blow, is the first indication of Indian hostility, he might have sought for the cause of that hostility in the known fact that a political party in the United States had taught these sons of the forest to believe themselves to be sovereign and independent nations, whose rights as such had been invaded; and that even the benevolent acts of our own Government were injustice and oppression in disguise, deserving no better than the punishment of death and extermination of our citizens at their hands. If the Committee on Finance had it in their power to act as promptly as they did on the bill I have named, why did the same committee of the last session hold up the appropriation bills for more than a month after they had passed the House, and not suffer the Senate to bave them until it was too late to advocate on this floor what was expedient, and oppose what was inexpedient? Mr. President, for the four sessions I have had a seat in this body, I have voted steadily against extravagant appropriations. I have voted against all appropriations for local internal improvements; against all increased allowances; against claims which, in my opinion, had no foundation in justice. My opposition, at times, has here scarcely had the weight of a feather. If there have been extravagant expenditures, if offices have been multiplied, and the compensation of officers in creased, all has been sanctioned by a majority of the Senate. What would have been the condition of the treasury at this moment, had there been no restraint upon the will of the Senate? Has not the Senate, by passing bills which have been vetoed by the President, sanctioned principles of allowance which would have made the treasury at this moment a hundred millions in debt? The Maysville road veto stopped appropriations, much of which would have been money virtually thrown away, as has been a large share of the expendi tures on the Cumberland road, which would probably have amounted at this time to at least sixty millions of dollars-ten millions a year: the veto on the bill allowing the States interest on their war claims, which war claims had been liberally and largely allowed by the Government, stopped an immediate abstraction of many millions more. The principle of this last bill, followed out, would have left no end to the claims that would have been kept up on the treasury: the first and largest sum would have gone to Massachusetts, as the interest on that claim which, by dint of perseverance, she succeeded in procuring, since the commencement of the present administration, for State expenditures made in defiance of the constituted authorities of the general Government in time of war! Mr. President, illiberal and ungenerous as I have been to those who wanted large sums from the treasury, I did vote, with the gentlemen then acting in the minority in the Senate, for the appropriation of three millions of dollars to be expended, as the public exigencies might require, in preparing the nation to defend itself against a foreign enemy. Liberal and generous as have been the gentlemen who composed a majority of the Senate, every one of that majority voted against the apthe odium of leaving the seaboard in its present defenceless state? The Senators, whose habit it was to vote for the most extensive appropriations, voted against this appropriation; and, taken in connexion with the attitude of the majority on the subject of the differences with France, is it not clear that the refusal to give the Executive the means of defence, on the part of this body, operated as a new inducement to the French Government to deny us justice? Was this not a strong indication that, even should France for ever deny the execution of her solemn contract, she might at least rely on one branch of the American Legislature to pal Mr. President, we have very lately had a specimen of the facility with which bills may pass the Senate.propriation of three millions. On whom, then, rests On yesterday a bill appropriating half a million of dollars for defraying the expense of defending the country against the murderous warfare of the Seminole Indians in Florida, was received from the House of Representatives, committed to the Committee on Finance, reported on, and passed three several readings, all on the same day. There was no opposition to the bill, only the very significant inquiry made by the Senator from Kentucky, [Mr. CLAY,] how it happens that these Indians should have attacked our men, and the War Department furnish us with no evidence of that intended hostility? If that Senator had not studied enough of Indian |