SENATE.] Admission to the Floor of the Senate-Slavery in the District of Columbia. of the constitution, I could not vote for it. It is inexpedient, and calculated to keep alive, rather than to repress, the spirit of abolitionism. To refuse to receive their petitions is probably the very course the abolitionists would wish Congress to pursue. This would, at least, have the appearance of injustice, if not of persecution. Will you shut your doors in the face of American citizens who wish to present any subject, no matter what, before Congress! This will be furnishing them with a ground of complaint; it will excite sympathy, and tend to form a collateral issue, intimately connected with abolitionism; it would be putting a weapon into their hands, which they can use to advantage. I would not give this class of persons any advantages, by treatting them unjustly, or denying to them any rights to which they are entitled in common with any American citizen. They are now in the wrong; public opinion is against them, and I would be careful to give them no advantages; to do no act calculated to check the strong current which is setting against their proceedings. I should be sorry to see, either here or elsewhere, any course pursued towards these misguided and mistaken men, calcu lated to keep up an excitement, which the peace and best interests of the country require should be allayed. Nothing but injustice, or injudicious measures, in opposition to their proceedings, can prevent a speedy extinction of the spirit of abolitionism among an intelligent people, who, jealous of their own rights, will be careful not to invade the rights of others-a people with whom truth and reason bear a controlling sway, and public opinion is the supreme law, from which there is no ap. peal. Sir, I have done; my principal object was, to state freely and fully what I believed to be public sentiment on this subject, in its various aspects and bearings, in at least one of the Northern States, where early and persevering efforts have been made to introduce the principles and spirit of modern abolitionism; but, I am happy to say, with very little success. When Mr. NILES had taken his seat, Mr. LEIGH again complained that the gentleman from Connecticut had misrepresented what he had said; when, On motion of Mr. BLACK, The Senate adjourned, at 5 o'clock. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 16. ADMISSION TO THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE. The resolution (on the table) offered by Mr. BUCHANAN, to allow each Senator to introduce three ladies into the lobby of the Senate, was taken up for consideration. Mr. TIPTON moved to lay the resolution on the table: Yeas 16, nays 18. A debate then arose on the motion, in which Mr. KNIGHT, Mr. BUCHANAN, Mr. KING of Alabama, Mr. PORTER, Mr. LINN, and Mr. CALHOUN, took part. Mr. KNIGHT moved to amend the resolution by striking out "ladies," and inserting "persons." Mr. LINN moved to amend the resolution by striking out all after the word "Resolved," and inserting: "That the circular gallery be appropriated to ladies and such gentlemen as may accompany them; and that each Senator be allowed to introduce there three gentlemen." Mr. PORTER moved to refer the whole resolution to the select committee: Yeas 17, nas 22. The amendment offered by Mr. KNIGHT was then negatived: Yeas 19, mays 20. The question being on the amendment moved by Mr. LINN, a further debate took place, in which Mr. BU CHANAN, Mr. CALHOUN, Mr. LINN, Mr. NILES, Mr. NAUDAIN, and Mr. WRIGHT, participated. [FEB. 16, 1836. Mr. NAUDAIN moved to amend the amendment by striking out the last clause; which was negatived. Mr. MOORE moved to lay the subject on the table. The yeas and nays being ordered, on motion of Mr. BUCHANAN, the question was decided as follows: YEAS--Messrs. Benton, Clayton, Grundy, Hendricks, Hill, Hubbard, Linn, McKean, Moore, Morris, Porter, Prentiss, Ruggles, Shepley, Tallmadge, Tipton, Webster, White, Wright--19. NAYS--Messrs. Black, Brown, Buchanan, Calhoun, Clay, Crittenden, Davis, Ewing of Illinois, Ewing of Ohio, Goldsborough, Kent, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Knight, Leigh, Mangum, Naudain, Niles, Preston, Robbins, Southard, Swift, Tomlinson, Tyler, Wall--25. The question was then taken on the amendment moved by Mr. LINN; the yeas and nays being called, it was decided as follows: YEAS--Messrs. Benton, Brown, Hendricks, Hill, Hubbard, Linn, Porter, Prentiss, Ruggles, Shepley, Tipton, Wright--12. NAYS-Messrs. Black, Buchanan, Calhoun, Clay, Clayton, Crittenden, Davis, Ewing of lilinois, Ewing of Ohio, Goldsborough, Grundy, Kent, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Leigh, McKean, Mangum, Moore, Naudain, Niles, Preston, Robbins Southard, Swift, Tomlinson, Tyler, Wall, Webster, White-31. The question was then taken on the original resolution, by yeas and nays, and decided as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Black, Brown, Buchanan, Calhoun, Clay, Crittenden, Davis, Ewing of Illinois, Ewing of Ohio, Goldsborough, Kent, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Leigh, Mangum, Preston, Robbins, Tomlinson, Tyler, Wall-20. NAYS-Messrs. Benton, Clayton, Grundy, Hendricks, Hill, Hubbard, Leigh, Linn, McKean, Moore, Morris, Naudain, Niles, Porter, Prentiss, Ruggles Shepley, Southard, Swift, Tallmadge, Tipton, Webster, White, Wright-24. So the resolution was rejected. Mr. KING, of Alabama, then laid on the table a resolution to appropriate one third of the circular gallery to the ladies, exclusively; which lies over for consideration. ABOLITION OF SLAVERY IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. The Senate proceeded to the consideration of the petition on the subject of the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia; when Mr. MANGUM, on account of the indisposition of Mr. BLACK, moved to postpone the consideration of the subject until to-morrow. Mr. LEIGH said he had seen in a morning paper a very odd account of an incident that occurred at the close of yesterday's debate. He then read from the Telegraph the following passage: "Mr. NILES proceeded till he got to Mr. LEIGH, to whom he ascribed an expression in regard to abolition at the North. "Mr. LEIGH explained. He had uttered no such words, and no such sentiment. "Mr. NILES waived a reply, and proceeded through his manuscript, interspersing and closing it with various extemporaneous arguments. When he had done, at half past four o'clock, "Mr. LEIGH again repeated that he had uttered no such sentiment as Mr. N. had ascribed to him, and asked, as an act of justice, that Mr. N. would insert this disclaimer in his speech, when published. "Mr. NILES had got the expression from the Globe. He was unwilling to trust Mr. LEIGH's disclaimer; but, if Mr. L. would prove to him that he had made no such expression, he would run his pen across it." FEB. 17, 1836.] Custom-house at New Orleans-National Defence. According to this account (said Mr. LEIGH) the gross est of all insults was intentionally given to me, and patiently submitted to. I cannot suffer this account to pass unnoticed. The substance of the conversation was this: After the Senator from Connecticut concluded his remarks, I rose, and, referring to that passage in his speech in which he professed to state what I had said in the debate on this subject-the passage ending with attributing to me a declaration that Doctor Channing's book had convinced me there was something rotten in Denmark-I said that I had understood the Senator from Connecticut to say he had not heard my speech; and he signified that I had understood him aright. I then said that I supposed he must have found the sentiments he imputed to me in some printed account of my remarks. He assented. I asked him where. He answered, in the Globe. I then remarked that I had hardly ever taken the trouble to correct misrepre sentations of my conduct or language in the newspapers, simply because whatever public man should undertake that task would have to devote his whole time to it; but that, when language and sentiments which I never uttered were imputed to me by a Senator in his place, and in my hearing, to permit such a misstatement to pass without correction would be to acknowledge its justness. That, therefore, I desired of the Senator from Connecticut, as an act of justice to me, that, when he should publish his speech, he would put a note on the passage alluded to, informing his readers that I declared in my place that I had uttered no such words and no such sentiments. The Senator from Connecticut said he had taken his information, as to what I had said, from a report in the Globe, which he took to be a very honest paper; and that, if I would satisfy him that I had not delivered such sentiments, he would run his pen through the whole passage; he would expunge it. The requisition on me to satisfy him (after what had passed) was, to be sure, taking the Senator's words in their natural import, offensive enough, though I did not then, nor do I now, believe the offence was intended. But I rose and said I had not intended to take, and certainly should not take, the least pains to satisfy him; that all I desired was not to be misunderstood by the public; and that, if the language and sentiments which the Senator had ascribed to me were imputed to me by the report of my speech in the Globe, it was a gross, and, I did not doubt, a wilful misrepresentation; that it imputed to me that which was not only never said by me, but the reverse of what I did say, as every gentleman who heard the speech could avouch; and, in truth, I had not supposed it possible that any human being could misunderstand the language and temper of that speech. After some remarks from Mr. NILES, Mr. LEIGH rose and asked that gentleman to say explicitly whether he intended to doubt the sincerity of his disclaimer of the language and sentiments ascribed to him. Mr. NILES said that he had already denied having any such intention; that he never pretended to give the precise words made use of by the gentleman, but only the construction which he thought they were fairly susceptible of. Mr. LEIGH replied that, in that case, he had no further remark to make, except that he was wonderstruck that any human being could put such a construction upon the portion of his remarks in question. The motion to postpone was agreed to. The Senate now proceeded to the general orders; and, after disposing of the business on the table, Adjourned. WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 17. [SENATE. CUSTOM-HOUSE AT NEW ORLEANS. Mr. PORTER said that he held in his hand two presentments from two successive grand juries of the dis trict of New Orleans, in which the dilapidated state of the custom-house of New Orleans is brought under no. tice. They represent, sir, (said Mr. P.,) what is well known by every person acquainted with the subject, that the building at present appropriated for the purpose of carrying on the fiscal operations of the United States in that city is wholly unfit for the purposes for which it was erected; and that it, and the lot on which it is placed, are now a public nuisance. Sir, the cir cumstances connected with the erection of the present custom-house in the city of New Orleans furnish a lesson which, I trust, will not be disregarded in the action which may now be had on this matter, and which I hope will particularly be noticed by the committee to which it is referred. It is now (said Mr. P.) I think seventeen or eighteen years since the building used for the purpose of collect. ing the revenue in the capital of Louisiana was found inadequate to the rapidly extending commerce of that city, and an appropriation was made to construct a new one. Instead, sir, of those to whom the task of con trolling its erection was intrusted looking to the position of the city, and its inevitable and vast increase at no distant time, they turned their attention to have the smallest house within which the business could be done put up; and, in their passion for economy, they determined to have it built on the cheapest possible terms. The result (said Mr. P.) has been, that the money so unwisely laid out has been nearly a total loss. Another must now be erected, when, if one looking to the probable business of the place had been put up in the first instance, no call would now be necessary on the treasury. While I am up, (said Mr. P.,) I will take occasion to say that there can be no economy so injurious as that which in the erection of public buildings looks merely to tem porary utility and temporary duration. They should be made, sir, to last as long as the republic; and, in their solidity and grandeur, should bear some analogy to the nation that constructs them. This observation, sir, true in all times and all circumstances, is peculiarly so in rela tion to those which may be put up in New Orleans, where extraordinary commercial advantages destine it, and that at no distant time, to be the first commercial emporium on earth. Mr. P. concluded by moving that the presentments be referred to the Committee on Commerce. The presentments were accordingly so referred. NATIONAL DEFENCE. The Senate proceeded to the consideration of the spe cial order, being the resolution introduced by Mr. BEx TON for appropriating the surplus revenue to objects of permanent national defence. Mr. WRIGHT, who was entitled to the floor, rose and addressed the Chair as follows: Mr. President: I took the floor on Friday last, to detain the Senate with any remarks of mine, in the course of this debate, with extreme reluctance; a reluctance arising from the manifest desire of this body to terminate the discussion, and come to the question. The reluc tance thus felt was greatly increased by the knowledge that many members, upon both sides of the House, understood that the debate was to close with the closing speech of the mover of the resolutions, [Mr. BENTON,] and that the question was to be taken when he should resume his seat. My own desire that the resolutions should receive, if possible, the unanimous vote of the Senate, still further increased my unwillingness to protract the discussion, as, in the then state of things, I considered SENATE.] National Defence. it very desirable to have the vote of the Senate upon the I had intended particularly to reply to the position assumed by the honorable Senator from Virginia, [Mr. LEIGH,] that it was permissible, for any cause, or under any circumstances, that a foreign Government should interpose itself between the President and Congress; that any foreign Government should have the right toask and that it should be the duty of any department of our Government to make, either explanation or apology (by whichever term the gentleman may choose to characterize the demand) touching any matter contained in any communication from the President of the United States to the Congress of the United States, or from the Congress of the United States to the President of the United States. [Here Mr. LEIGH asked leave to explain, and Mr. W. yielded the floor to him for that purpose. He said the question discussed by him was not whether the explanation or apology ought to be made, because it had been conceded on all hands that the requisite explanation bad been made in the last annual message from the President to Congress, but in what manner that explanation should reach the French Government; whether by direct communication, in the ordinary course of diplomatic correspondence, or indirectly, by being contained in a message to Congress; and that he had contended that the former mode, of direct diplomatic communication, was preferable.] Mr. W. resumed. The question is understood alike by the gentleman and myself. He will not pretend that the annual message from the President to Congress, or any other message from that officer to this body, is a communication, in any sense, directly or indirectly, to a foreign Government; that such messages are ever transmitted upon the demand or requisition of a foreign Government; or that any foreign Government can, in any proper view of the subject, be considered, directly or indirectly, as a party to these communications. They cannot, then, be termed either explanations or apologies to a forein Power; and the question returns, are we to permit [FEB. 17, 1836. any foreign Government to interpose itself between these two branches of our Government, and demand either explanation or apology in reference to the communications passing between them? No, never, Mr. President, while we remain an independent nation. I had also intended, said Mr. W., to have replied particularly to the position assumed by the honorable Senator from Ohio, [Mr. EwING,] that things had better remain precisely as they then were, or as we supposed they then were, than to have a war with France; in other words, to give what I understood to be the purport of the Senator's position, we had better yield the execution of the treaty on the part of France, than to insist upon its fulfilment at the expense of a war. I am prevented, Mr. President, by the news which has reached the country since this subject was last under the consideration of the Senate, from replying to either of the gentlemen, or to any other gentleman who has addressed the Senate in the course of this debate touching our French relations; and, consequently, I am prevented from making a reply to the two positions I have just stated, and which I have considered more exceptionable and dangerous than any other assumed by the gentleman. The information I have received through the public press, and otherwise, has entirely satisfied my mind that our difficulties with France are definitively and amicably settled; that the money due under the treaty has been, many days since, actually paid; that the French Government have considered the last annual message of the President entirely satisfactory as to the offence they assumed was contained in the preceding one; and that diplomatic relations between the two countries will be speedily resumed upon a friendly footing. announce these convictions with the highest feelings of gratification; and entertaining them, as I do, without the shadow of a doubt, it would be in the extreme improper, in my estimation, for me here to discuss any topic connected with, or involving in any manner, our relations with France, or to reply to any remarks which have fallen from Senators in that portion of the debate which has transpired touching those relations. I I have, Mr. President, entered my distinct dissent from the two positions to which I have referred-the one assumed by the Senator from Virginia, [Mr. LEIGH,] and the other by the Senator from Ohio, [Mr. EWING;] and beyond that, for the reasons I have given, I must content myself, as to this portion of the debate, with simply saying to those who, since the transmission of the last annual message of the President to Congress, have pronounced our Government in the wrong in this controversy with France, that France has not thought so; to those who have considered it the right of France to interpose between the President and Congress, and to demand explanations or apologies as to any thing contained in his messages to this body, that France has withdrawn her claim to any such right; to those who have contended that it was better for us to yield the execution of the treaty on the part of France, to give up our protection of our commerce upon the high seas, to surrender the rights of their citizens to indemnity for depredations upon that commerce, after those rights have been acknowledged and liquidated by the most solemn of all obligations between nations, the execution of a treaty for the payment of the claims-to surrender, in short, our national honor, by the concession that we cannot defend that honor, and its consequence, the safety of our commerce and the interests of our citizens, I must also content myself with saying that such have not been the views of the present administration of our Government. That administration has considered it to be its highest duty to insist upon the execution of solemn treaty stipulations, to protect the rights and interests of our citizens, and the safety of our commerce, and, above and beyond all, to preserve the honor of the country against every assault or imputation, from whatever quarter that assault may be made, and at whatever hazard, even the hazard of an appeal to the ultima ratio of nations. Beyond these remarks, Mr. President, I must confine myself to the resolutions before the Senate, with such very brief replies to a few remarks made in the course of the debate as I may find it my duty to make, excluding any reference to our foreign relations. And here (said Mr. W.) I must be permitted to say, if I understand the resolutions in their present shape correctly, that the information of the settlement of our difficulties with France does not, in the slightest degree, affect their object, or the action of the Senate upon them. They propose a permanent system of defence, external and internal, for the whole country-a system of defence which does not contemplate war, but the preservation of peace and security. I cannot better illustrate my understanding of the object of the resolutions than by detaining the Senate to read them. They are as follows: "Resolved, That so much of the surplus revenue of the United States, and the dividends of stock receivable from the Bank of the United States, as may be necessary for the purpose, ought to be set apart and applied to the general defence and permanent security of the country. "Resolved, That the President be requested to cause the Senate to be informed- "1. The probable amount that would be necessary for fortifying the lake, maritime, and gulf frontier of the United States, and such points of the land frontier as may require permanent fortifications. 2. The probabie amount that would be necessary to construct an adequate number of armories and arsenals in the United States, and to supply the States with field artillery (especially brass field pieces) for their militia, and with sidearms and pistols for their cavalry. "3. The probable amount that would be necessary to supply the United States with the ordnance, arms, and munitions of war, which a proper regard to self-defence would require to be always on hand. [SENATE. moneys in the treasury, after the ordinary and necessary appropriations for the support of the Government in its various departments shall have been paid, including the ordinary appropriations for the gradual improvement of the navy, and for the gradual progress in the construction and completion of the fortifications already commenced, and not any interference with those appropriations. Their object is to hasten the completion of perfect and secure defences, by the application of moneys in the treasury not required for any other national object, but not to interrupt the course of the Government in any of the other great interests for which the ordinary annual appropriations are made. They propose to pledge, not the revenue, but so much of the surplus revenue as may be necessary to this great object. 13 The resolutions, then, Mr. President, or rather the first resolution, is, I apprehend, in the precise shape in which it should remain to meet the object the mover of the resolution had in view, and which I have in view in supporting them. This resolution is designed to act upon the surplus revenue only--upon that portion of the public moneys which shall remain in the treasury after all the ordinary calls upon that treasury have been fully answered; and it proposes to pledge so much of that surplus, "as may be necessary for the purpose,' to the great object of permanent national defence and security. Am I right in my construction of this resolution in its present shape? If so, the amendment of the Senator from Delaware, [Mr. CLAYTON,] to strike out the word "surplus," ought not to prevail. That amendment will, to my understanding, change the whole character of the resolution, and destroy entirely the pledge designed to be made. The object is to set apart and apply to the general defence and permanent security of the country so much of the surplus of the revenues of the nation as may be necessary for that object; and if the form of the resolution be so changed as to apply its action to the revenues generally, and not to the surplus, it may be so construed as only to contain an expression that we will appropriate, for the present year, so much of the public money to the various purposes of defence as we may think proper and necessary, and nothing will be "set apart" for defences which is not actually appropriated by the appropriation bills of the year. Any surplus which may then remain in the treasury will be open to any other disposition which Congress may choose to make of it, without any infringement upon the pledge given by the resolution. This I do not understand to be in accordance with the object of the resolution. That object is to set apart a fund, such as may be necessary, to be exclusively applied to the defences of the country, naval and military, and to constitute that fund of the surplus which shall remain in the treasury after the ordinary appropriations of the present and of each succeeding year shall have been paid. In other words, I understand the object to be to carry on the business of putting the country in a complete state of defence, internal and external, as rapidly as the means in the treasury will allow, without interference with the usual and necessary annual appropriations, in case the They also cover the naval defences of the moneys which may be applied to this object can be ecocountry, and constitute, in contemplation, a permanent nomically and usefully expended as fast as they accumuand durable system, in every sense in which I am able late; but, if they cannot, that a permanent fund be "set to comprehend that such a system could be adopt-apart" from these accumulations, sufficient to accomplish ed, with proper regard to the respective interests and the end in view, at the earliest practicable period. Sureperfect security of the whole country, and of all its greatly, then, the word "surplus" should be retained in the interests, external and internal. They do not, either in their language or design, contemplate immediate war, but they look to a state of defence and security against any and every war which may come upon the country in all future time. 4. The probable amount that would be necessary to place the naval defences of the United States (including the increase of the navy, navy yards, dock yards, and steam or floating batteries) upon the footing of strength and respectability which is due to the security and to the welfare of the Union." Thus it will be seen at a single glance that the object is not to prepare, temporarily, for an impending or contemplated war, but for the permanent and durable de. fences of the whole country against all dangers which may assail its peace and disturb its quiet, whether foreign or domestic, whether having their rise from without or from within. The pledge is general, for the " perma. nent security" of the country, and the inquiries are as broad as the whole Union, and cover all its great interests in reference to defence of coast, lake, gulf, and land frontier, and every internal means of "general defence and permanent security" of armories, arsenals, and arms. | | For the accomplishment of this great and paramount national object, the resolutions rely upon the surplus I first resolution, that the pledge may be made effectual and operative, and that the means to accomplish this vital object of national defence may be secured from the surplus moneys in the treasury, before any other disposition shall be made by Congress of the present or any future accumulation of means beyond the ordinary annual wants of the country, I have said, Mr. President, that I would vote for the resolution, whether this amendment should or should not prevail. I still retain the same opinion, but I am bound in candor to say that, when the amendment was first proposed, I did not think it at all important, and rather derived the impression that, if it could be considered as changing the character of the resolution at all, it must be held to go beyond the object of the mover, and more rapidly than he proposed to go. Upon reflection, I am satisfied that I did not correctly appreciate the force and bearing of the word "surplus," proposed to be stricken out, and that, without that word, we shall merely resolve that we will appropriate for this single year so much of the money in the treasury as a majority of this body shall believe may be necessary and can be usefully expended towards the general and permanent defences of the country," while the surplus, if any, in the treasury will not be "set apart" or pledged to this great object, but will remain subject to any disposition which Congress may choose to make of it, without an infraction of our resolution. Our purpose to defend the country will be declared, but the means to do it will not be "set apart" by our expression. For these reasons I hope the proposed amendment may not prevail, and that the first resolution may retain its present form. There is, Mr. President, another amendment proposed to this resolution, upon which I must trouble you with a single remark. I refer to the proposition of the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. PRESTON] to strike out the whole resolution after the word "Resolved," and to insert the following: "That such appropriations as may be necessary for the purpose ought to be made, to carry on the system of general defence and permanent protection of the country." This amendment, if adopted, will make the resolu tion much more vague and unmeaning than to adopt the amendment of the Senator from Delaware, to strike out the word "surplus." Indeed, if I rightly comprehend this proposition, it merely declares that we will, for the present year, make the same appropriations for the defence of the country which have been regularly and uniformly made from about the close of our late war with Great Britain to the present time, the appropriations of the last year being alone excepted. Is it, then, Mr. President, necessary for us to declare, by a resolution, that we will not now stop the ordinary appropriations for defence which have been regularly made for nearly twenty years last past? Does any member of this body contemplate, for a moment, that those very limited appropriations will be either suspended or diminished? Surely, then, we cannot be asked to adopt this amendment. The resolutions under debate propose to accel. erate our progress in the work of defence, by the application of the surplus revenues of the country to that work. This amendment proposes to "carry on the system" as it now exists, and has been carried on for the period I have mentioned. The resolutions propose tu extend our system of defence, and make it universal and applicable to all dangers, external or internal. The amendment proposes to carry on "the system" now in progress, without extension. I need not say more to satisfy the Senate that the adoption of this amendment would be an entire defeat of the resolutions offered by the Senator from Missouri. Mr. President, if the resolutions retain their present shape, they are, as has been said by the mover of them, antagonist to the proposition of the Senator from South Carolina, [Mr. CALHOUN,] to divide the surplus revenue among the States. Both propositions act upon the same money, and propose very different dispositions of it. The former proposes to expend it, or so much of it as [FEB. 17, 1836. may be necessary for the great object of national defence. The latter proposes to give it to the States, to be expended at their pleasure, not for national, but for State, objects. They are, therefore, directly antagonist. I think the resolution, also, equally antagonist to the measure introduced by the Senator from Kentucky, [Mr. CLAY,] and known here by the designation of "the land bill." It is not now my purpose to inquire how far the principles of this measure and of that proposed by the Senator from South Carolina are the same, and wherein they may differ. They both propose a distribu. tion to the States of a sum equal to the whole surplus in the treasury. They both act upon the same money, and the resolution before us, proposing to set apart so much of that surplus as may be necessary to be expended upon the national defences of the country, must be equally antagonist to both, because it proposes to apply in a different manner, and for a very different pur pose, a part, or the whole, of the fund upon which both the other propositions act. Much has been said by several gentlemen in the course of the debate, as to the amount of this surplus. I have, Mr. President, used my best efforts to inform myself truly upon this point, and I will now give to the Senate the result of my inquiries. I sought the information at the Treasury Department, because I knew of no other place where correct and certain information could be obtained upon the point; and the statement I am about to make is one prepared from information communicated from the head of that Department, and rests upon the authority of the accounts of receipts and expenditures kept in that office, with very trifling exceptions, which will be seen to be matters of estimate. I have found it necessary to give this result in the dry form of figures and arithmetical deductions; but I have compressed it into as small a compass as was possible, and in that form I will give it to the Senate. The money in the treasury, on the 1st January, 1835, was $8,892,858. The collections of the first three quarters of the year 1835, as ascertained before the Secretary's annual report was made, were $23,480,881. The collections of the fourth quarter of 1835, as far as those collections have been yet ascertained, are $10,919,852. In addition to these sums, the Secretary now estimates that there will remain, to be added to the receipts of the year 1835, as part of the collections of the fourth quarter, not yet ascertained, $230,000. This will show an aggregate of means, for the year 1835, of $43,523,591. Deduct from this aggregate the expenditures of the first three quarters of the year 1835, as ascertained before the annual report of the Secretary was made, $13,376,141. Deduct also the actual expenditures of the fourth quarter of 1835, as now ascertained with sufficient ac curacy for this calculation, $4,050,000-$17,426,141. And then there will remain an apparent surplus of $26,097,450. From this apparent surplus, the following deductions must be made to ascertain the real surplus, viz: 1st. The unavailable funds in the treasury, which constitute a part of the balance remaining in the treasury on the first day of every year, as shown by the accounts, $1,100,000. 2d. The amount of outstanding appropriations, being sums appropriated by law, but which have not been called for at the treasury at the close of the year. This amount is an estimate, but it is arrived at by making a deduction from the whole amount of outstanding appro priations of all such portions as are supposed likely not to be called for, and, consequently, to pass to the sinking |