with some degree of confidence, upon some steady and certain course of legislation in relation to themselves. Now, sir, a distribution of the proceeds of the public lands among the States would remedy all these evils, and correct all these anomalies of our system. It would secure to us a settled policy, upon which the country might rely. It would draw off from the General Government this eccentric source of revenue, and distribute it among the States. We should then be left where the constitution intended to place us. The Government would then be administered on its original principles. All our expenditures would then be derived from the taxes which we might impose on the people, and the tariff would thus be rendered fixed and certain. Whatever protection might then be afforded would be stable. Under such circumstances, an incidental protective duty, comparatively small, would be of more real value than a much larger one, subject to all the risk and uncertainly which now exist. A manufacturer, whilst embarking in business, would not then dread lest the policy of Congress might change before he could get into successful operation. There would then be no taxes raised from the people to be distributed among the people. We should hear no more of surpluses. Combining some such a disposition of the proceeds of the public lands with an arrangement, as to the lands themselves, which would be satisfactory to the new States, the system might thereby be rendered perfect and permanent. I am strongly impressed with the belief that a plan might be devised which would meet the approbation of all reasonable men in the new States, whilst the just rights of the old States would be amply secured. But all hope of such a consummation has almost departed. The friends of the land bill have cast it aside. Even the Senator from Kentucky has abandoned the promising child which he had adopted and nursed so long and so tenderly, and is now caressing and cherishing the ill-favored bantling which is now before the Senate. Has any argument which I urged when I first addres sed the Senate been answered by the gentleman from South Carolina? [Mr. CALHOUN.] He says that it is a reflection upon the virtue and patriotism of the American people and their representatives, to suggest that they would withhold the necessary appropriations from the Federal Government, because the States might expect to receive what would remain unexpended in the Treas ury at the conclusion of each year. Can this inference be fairly drawn from my argument? Every wise legislator, of every age, in framing any plan of government, has always taken care that the duty of those who were to administer it should not clash with their interests. In other words, that those who were to work the machine should not have any strong feeling opposed to its sucessful operation. Man, in his best state, is but a frail being. if you place his interest upon the one side and his duty upon the other, the history of the human race abundantly proves that he has too often abandoned his principles for the sake of promoting his private advantage. Lead us not into temptation, was the prayer of Him who best understood human nature. Am I, then, to be charged with reflecting upon the American people, because I believe they will be influenced by the motives which have swayed all mankind from the beginning? What wise man would ever think of establishing a constitution which would place the interest of the Governors in opposition to a correct and efficient administration of the Government? Would not this be emphatically the case, if you say to the Senators and Representatives in Congress that you shall have every dollar of surplus in the Treasury at the end of each year, for the use of your own States, which you can withhold from national objects? I would ask the Senator, if he were about to [SENATE. erect a house, and desired to have it elegantly and substantially built, whether he would put a given amount for that purpose into the hands of his agent, upon condition that the whole surplus which he could save, after the work was completed, should be his own property? This would be offering him a premium to be faithless to his trust. No, sir; I deny that, in applying to the Amer. ican people the laws which govern human nature generally, I am treating them with disrespect. I merely say that they are mortal men, and not angels. I should be the last man to distrust their patriotism, because I firmly believe that, comparing them with the rest of mankind, they are, in the mass, more pure and more virtuous than any other nation upon the face of the earth. Our own history presents us a useful lesson upon this subject. Let us refer to the days of the confederation; and what was then the state of things? Did the different State Governments pay into the Federal Treasury their contingents, which were due upon every fair principle? Would the debts of the Revolution have ever been discharged, had the old confederation continued to exist? No, sir. The members of the State Legislatures refused to tax the people of the respective States for these purposes. They were placed in such a position that their duty to the Government of the confederation was at war with the interests of their constituents; and the consequence was, that Government became a mere shadow-destitute of power, and incapable of performing its most necessary functions. Yet these men, who refused to perform their duties, were the very men who had perilled every thing in the cause of liberty. I voted for the deposite bill of the last session on the very principles then maintained by the Senator from South Carolina. At that time we heard nothing from him which would authorize us to infer that be intended to make the extreme medicine of the constitution its daily bread. [Mr. CALHOUN here explained. He said that the bill introduced by him at the last session contained a distribution for several years.] Mr. B. continued. I was perfectly aware of that fact; but with whom did this portion of his bill find favor? 13 it not notorious that he abandoned it himself? He advocated the bill as an extreme remedy for an extreme case, and justified the measure from its absolute necessity. The patient was then in a state of the most alarming plethora. The danger of apoplexy was imminent. We bled him copiously in order to save his life. But now, if we are to believe my friend from Georgia, [Mr. KING,] whose opinions upon this subject are entitled to great consideration, our patient will ere long be as lank and lean as the knight of La Mancha. He is now threatened with a galloping consumption. Shall we, then, Sangrado like, continue to bleed? When the symptoms change, the treatment should be different. Although I do not concur with the Senator from Georgia in the opinion he has expressed in regard to the future state of the Treasury, yet I cannot perceive the least necessity, under existing circumstances, to pass another deposite bill. I can never consent to make that which was an exception, under a peculiar state of things, the general rule of our conduct. It is so rendered still more emphatically by attaching this amendment to a common appropriation bill. If you introduce this policy, as a general system, you will change the whole theory and practice of our Government. What effect will this principle probably produce upon the State Governments at home? They are now frugal and careful of the people's money, because their expenditures are derived from taxes levied upon the people. The members of the State Legislatures are placed in that condition of responsibility to their immediate constituents, which necessarily secures prudence and economy SENATE.] Distribution Question. in making appropriations. But let the flood-gates of the I would put a question to my friend from Arkansas, [Mr. SEVIER.] We have removed and are about remov. ing all the Indians east of the Mississippi to the country west of his State and that of Missouri. These turbulent and restless savages will all be imbodied on the Western frontier of these States. The Government are bound by every principle to yield their citizens protection. Chiefly for this necessary purpose, the Senate has passed a bill to increase the rank and file of the army. Does the Senator believe that the bill will ever become a law, should we adopt the system of distributing surpluses among the States? [Mr. BENTON exclaimed “never, never,”] The two principles are as much opposed to each other as light and darkness. If the surplus derived from taxation is to be annually given to the States, all appropriations in Congress will fail, unless such as may be made under the pressure of immediate and pressing necessity. I voted for the deposite bill last year because no other practicable mode existed of relieving the Treasury, and removing the money from the deposite banks. But no such necessity now exists. No man now knows whether there will be a surplus or not. If there should be, as I think there will, it will be small, unless, indeed, this very bill should create it by defeating those measures in the other House necessary for the defence of the country, and the reduction of the revenue to the standard of our expenditures. [FEB. 28, 1837. tribution was an evil which ought not to be encouraged; and if it must take place, the next Congress could provide for it. Were they afraid to trust them with the question, and would they therefore legislate not only for the present, but for futurity? There was as much evil in too much legislation as in too little, especially in legislating for evils which might or might not exist. Mr. W. said he had no interest in the deposite banks. They were not of his party, but of the party opposed to the administration. If gentlemen would investigate, they would find that, in every instance, there was either a majority of the stock opposed to the administration, or a majority of the directors; and all the hue and cry against the deposite banks was made by the political friends of those who controlled them. Mr. W. therefore had no interest in them on political grounds. But the strongest objection to the amendment (provision) was that it was an improper mode of legislation. And in what situation would this species of legislation place some of the Senators who last year opposed appropria tions for these fortifications, but would vote for them this year with a small amendment added, which had no connexion with the original bill? [Mr EWING, of Ohio, said nearly every one voted for the bill last year.] Mr. W. said he spoke from the record; he would not recite it, but refer to it. Let gentlemen look at it themselves. Mr. W. was for making proper appropriations for the welfare of the country, but he protested against this log-rolling system of legislation, connecting together subjects totally distinct, and compelling members to take both or neither. Mr. WEBSTER said the Senator from New Jersey was certainly under a mistake. A bill for certain new works was opposed at the last session. But the bill known as the common fortification bill was not opposed. Mr. BENTON said perhaps there would be found in this fortification bill a part for new works. Mr. NILES and Mr. CRITTENDEN also addressed the Senate on the subject of the amendment of the House to distribute the surplus revenue; after which, The Senate took a recess. EVENING SESSION. DISTRIBUTION QUESTION. The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill from the House, making appropriations for fortifications, &c. for the year 1837, the question being on a motion to strike out the section of the bill which provided for a deposite of the surplus revenue, on the 1st of January next, with the several States. The debate was continued to a late hour with much earnestness, when the question was taken on the motion above stated, and decided as follows: YEAS--Messrs. Benton, Black, Brown, Cuthbert, Ew. Mr. WALL said he voted for the distribution bill of the last session, but he never did intend to adopt the principle as one upon which he would act in all future circumstances, or which he would make into a system. If circumstances should be the same at that time, he would act upon it according to his judgment. But they were now entirely different. It was not now the question how the money in the Treasury on the 1st of January, 1838, should be disposed of, but whether they should now sanction, by a deliberate act, a system of log-rolling legislation. The bill, without this distribution provision added to it, providing for the common defence of the country, was distinctly within the limits of the constitution. Who would not say that it was his duty to provide for the defence of the country? The bill to which this amendment was ingrafted was introduced in the House on the 21st of December, 1836, (the same billing of Illinois, Fulton, Grundy, Hubbard, King of Alafailed last year,) and was acted on, so far as concerned the appropriations, in the Senate bill till the 27th of February. In the original bill there were appropriations for fortifications in Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Maryland, Virginia, Louisiana, and Florida, and one or two others. These provis. ions were for defence, and were clearly and unequivocally constitutional. But when it was brought to the Senate, there was connected with it a measure for dividing, not what was now a surplus, but a surplus which depended upon prophecy. Mr. W. was not willing to legislate on prophecy. There might or might not be a surplus on the 1st of January, 1838; and if there might not be, Mr. W. would not make provision for what might not take place. If there should then be a surplus, there would be men here then as honest and faithful as now, and there would be time enough for them to legislate on facts. All acknowledged that dis bama, King of Georgia, Linn, Lyon, Nicholas, Niles, Norvell, Page, Parker, Rives, Ruggles, Sevier, Strange, Tallmadge, Walker, Wall, Wright--26. NAYS-Messrs. Bayard, Calhoun, Clayton, Crittenden Davis, Ewing of Ohio, Hendricks, Kent, Knight, Moore Prentiss, Preston, Robbins, Southard, Spence, Swift, Tomlinson, Webster, White--19. So the motion to strike out the provision for the distribution among the States of the surplus revenue on the 1st of January next, was decided in the affirmative. And, thus amended, the bill was ordered to a third reading. The various bills which were yesterday ordered to a third reading were severally read a third time and passed. The bill concerning pilots came up on its third reading. Mr. CALHOUN objected to it, as relating to a subject which required considerable attention, and as one which MARCH 1, 1837.] Light-houses-Post Office Department, &c. he was rather disposed to think properly belonged to the several States. Mr. WALL explained the objects of the bill in detail, and urged the importance of its passage. Mr. WRIGHT also spoke in favor of the bill; and it was then passed. LIGHT-HOUSES, &c. The Senate proceeded to consider, as in Committee of the Whole, the bill making appropriations for light houses, light-boats, buoys, &c., for the year 1837. Mr. DAVIS from the committee, offered various amendments to the bill, (mostly inconsiderable,) one of which requires the Navy Commissioners to examine the premises before any appropriations shall be applied; which amendments were all adopted. Mr. CALHOUN expressed his high approbation of this amendment, objecting, however, to the whole system, and especially to the practice of making appropri ations before the examinations are actually made. The bill was still further amended, on motions of Messrs. RUGGLES and HENDRICKS, and was then ordered to be engrossed for a third reading. Mr. RUGGLES stated that the aggregate amount appropriated by this bill was something over $500,000. POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT. On motion of Mr. ROBINSON, the bill to give security to correspondence between the United States and foreign countries was amended by a substitute, providing for an increase of the number and compensation of clerks and watchmen in the Post Office Department, and for the erection of a new building for that Department. Mr. ROBINSON stated that the Postmaster General had recommended to the committee a reduction of postage, as there was a large surplus of money in the Department. A majority of the committee were, however, of the opinion that it ought to be applied in increas ing mail facilities; for which purpose this substitute was now introduced. Mr. KNIGHT stated that the minority of the committee were of the contrary opinion. The substitute for the bill was adopted as the bill, which was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, and subsequently passed. FRENCH AND NEAPOLITAN INDEMNITIES. Mr. WRIGHT moved the consideration of a bill anticipating the payment of indemnities accruing to citizens of the United States, under the convention with France of the 4th of July, 1831, and that with the Two Sicilies of the 14th October, 1832. Much discussion was excited by this motion; but it was at length agreed to. The bill was then reported, and ordered to its third reading, by yeas, and nays as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Bayard, Buchanan, Clayton, Ewing of Ohio, Hubbard, Kent, Linn, Nicholas, Niles, Norvell, Page, Parker, Robinson, Ruggles, Sevier, Southard, Tipton, Walker, Webster, Wright-20. NAYS--Messrs. Black, Davis, Hendricks, Moore, Swift, Tomlinson, Wall, White-8. Many other bills were taken up, considered as in Committee of the Whole, ordered to a third reading, and passed; when the Senate adjourned. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 1. CHEROKEE INDIANS. Mr. SOUTHARD presented the memorial of 2,500 Cherokee Indians, both east and west of the Mississippi, in relation to the treaty with their tribe ratified at the last session of the Senate, remonstrating against that treaty as fraudulent in its origin, and oppressive in its VOL. XIII.-64 [SENATE. effect, and praying an investigation of the subject by Congress. Mr. S. moved that the memorial be laid on the table and printed. Mr. PRESTON opposed the printing, as a useless expense, and as tending only to create pernicious agitation. Mr. SOUTHARD disclaimed all disposition to debate the question; but, after stating the nature of the petition, appealed to the Senate in behalf of what he represented as the wish of the great body of the Cherokee nation, that the late treaty should be examined into. It was too late in the session to hope for any action in the case, but he hoped the printing of the memorial would not ber.. fused. Mr. TIPTON, after referring to the late period of the session as not allowing of debate upon such a question, moved to lay the motion to print upon the table; which was agreed to. BOOKS FOR COMMITTEE ROOMS. The resolution introduced by Mr. WALL, for supplying the committee rooms of the Senate with various works published by order or under the superintendence of Congress, was read a third time; and the question being on its passage Mr. WALL explained its provisions, and stated that the total sum to be expended under the resolution would not much exceed $800. of works in the resolution Elliott's Debates and DiploMr. EWING moved to amend it by adding to the list matic Correspondence. Mr. SOUTHARD supported the resolution in a few remarks. sition to the resolution, which he deprecated as itself a Mr. BENTON went at length into a speech in oppouseless expenditure, as scattering the books which ought to be kept together under the care of the Secretary, and as leading to the establishment of a library for each committee room, &c. Mr. CALHOUN joined the opposition to the measure, as but the commencement of a system of expense, &c. On motion of Mr. BENTON, the resolution was laid on the table. TEXAS. Mr. WALKER called up his resolution for the recog nition of the independence of Texas, on which a debate of much interest arose. Mr. W. advocated his resolution by a speech of much earnestness, in which he pressed the claims of Texas for recognition with much devo. ted ardor. He was followed by Mr. PRESTON, on the same side, who went into an extensive review of the history of Mexico, from the period of her recognition by our own Government to the present time, whence he deduced the argument that she never had, in fact, exercised control over Texas, and was in no condition now to enforce her claims of sovereignty. He then went into a similar review of the history of Texas, past and present, and argued to show that she was fully capable of performing the duties and sustaining the responsibilities, both domestic and foreign, which belong to an independent Government. Mr. NORVELL said that, somewhat more than two months ago, the President had transmitted a message to the Senate of the United States, concerning the civil, political, and military condition of Texas, and its relations with Mexico. In that message he observed the following passage: "It is true that, with regard to Texas, the civil authority of Mexico has been expelled, its invading army defeated, the chief of the republic himself captured, and all present power to control the newly organized Government of Texas annihilated within its confines. But, on the other hand, there is, in appearance at least, an immense disparity of physical force on the side of Mexico. The Mexican republic, under another Executive, is rallying its forces under a new leader, and menacing a fresh invasion to recover its lost dominion. Upon the issue of this threatened invasion the independence of Texas may be considered as suspended; and were there nothing peculiar in the relative situation of the United States and Texas, our acknowledgment of its independence at such a crisis could scarcely be regarded as consistent with that prudent reserve with which we have heretofore held ourselves bound to treat all similar questions." [MARCH 1, 1837. ent Power, and deemed it expedient to despatch a minister to that country. Mr. N., therefore, submitted a substitute for the original resolution, declaring "that whenever information, satisfactory to the President of the United States, should be received, that Texas has in successful operation a civil Government, capable of performing the duties and of fulfilling the obligations of an independent Power, it will be expedient to acknowledge the independence of that republic." It would, he said, be observed, that while the language and spirit of his amendment were similar, in most respects, to the resolution adopted by the Senate at the last session upon the same subject, there was this material variation, in the amendment, from the resolution: that was an abstract and general declaration; this devolved upon the Presi dent the responsibility of deciding when such a state of things might exist as to justify the recognition of Texian independence. The amendment would obviate the ne. cessity of delaying this recognition until the next session of Congress, if, in the judgment of the President, it could be safely and wisely made before that time. Mr. WALKER objected to the amendment, as not advancing the Texian cause beyond the point at which it stood last session. Mr. CALHOUN also opposed the amendment, and spoke for a short time in support of Mr. WALKER's reso It is true, sir, (said Mr. N.,) that this second invading army has not penetrated into Texas. It is true that not a hostile foot is to be found in Texas. But it is equally true that the late chief of the Mexican republic has been released from imprisonment by the Texian Government, and that he has returned home. It is probable that this course was agreed upon by both of the contending parties, with the understanding that, if public sentiment in Mexico should be found to authorize it, the Mexican chief would himself lead the way in recognising the independence of Texas. If no such understanding had taken place, was it certain that another invasion of Texas, more formidable than the first, would not be attempt. ed? In either event, it would be more prudent in this Government, more wise, more consistent with the deli-lution. cate relations which exist between the United States and Mr. CLAY inquired whether the resolution was inMexico, to wait until we see the result of the return to tended to be followed up by any, and what, legislative that country of the Mexican chief, before we venture action. He objected to the resolution, as covering not upon the decisive measure of recognition, and of throw-only the legislative but also the executive functions of ing additional embarrassment in the way of a peaceful adjustment of our serious differences with Mexico. The policy of this Government, with regard to foreign nations and to the domestic contests which take place among them for power, had, from the time of Washington to the present day, been cautious, prudent, and strictly impartial. We have always waited until their new Governments bad acquired stability, and were placed beyond the probability of change, before we recognised their independence. The Exccutive of this country could not, it would be remembered, be induced to acknowledge the independence of the Spanish American republics, until they had carried on their struggles with Spain for several years; and this, too, when we had no serious differences to adjust with that monarchy. The contest for Texian independence has not been going on for more than one year. We have, at this time, difficulties of such magnitude with the republic of Mexico, that the President of the United States had recommended reprisals against her. The Senate, two days ago, unanimously voted against the adoption of any such hostile measure towards that republic. And could they now, consistently with that vote, prematurely commit the peace of the nation? Could they now, honorably, take advantage of the weakness and distractions of Mexico, and recognise the independence of Texas, without knowing what course the Mexican chief himself would take on the subject? Would this be magnanimous? A short delay would remove all difficulty. This delay would not be incompatible with the indulgence of all our sympathies for the Texians. In a month or two we should learn the views of Santa Anna in relation to Texas. In the mean time, the Executive, charged with the foreign relations of the country, ought to be permitted to act according to circumstances, upon his own responsibility, with respect to the acknowledgment of Texian independence. This course would be in harmony with the action of the other branch of the Legislature on the subject. They had made an appropriation to enable the President to send a diplomatic agent to Texas, whenever he should receive satisfactory evidence that she was actually an independ the Government. Though he should prefer that the question should lie over a little longer, yet, if the question were put to him in any shape in which, as a legisla tor, he was called to give an affirmative or negative vote, he should, in conformity with the principles on which he had always acted in reference to the South American States, give an affirmative answer. But there would then remain behind the very grave and important question of annexation; on which he would at present express no opinion. They were entirely distinct questions; and a vote on the one would not commit any man on the other. As the question would come up, however, on the appropriation bill from the House, he should prefer, if agreeable to the mover, to move at present that it be laid upon the table. Mr. WALKER said that there would be no inconsistency in adopting his resolution, and then voting on the item in the appropriation bill. The latter was contingent in its character, but this resolution gave a positive expression of the opinion of the Senate. He contended for the propriety of such an expression of opinion, and against casting the whole burden of responsibility on the Executive. Mr. BUCHANAN, after expressing his best wishes for the success of Texas, and bis confident hope of it, contended that this was not the moment in which it bccame us to act. Every one knew that the success of Texas, thus far, had been achieved mainly by men and resources drawn, in fact, from the people of the United States, though without any recognition of its Govern ment; and as the people of Texas had adopted a resolution that, as soon we should recognise their independence, they would immediately apply for reception into the United States as a State of this Union, we might expose ourselves, in the view of the world, to the strongest suspicions of a departure from that impartiality which we had always observed toward other nations. As Santa Anna had had his life given him by the people of Texas, and was likely to return with acclamations to the Government of Mexico, would it not be better to wait and see whether he would not fulfil the promise he had been understood to have made of using his great influence in favor of his liberators? Mr. B. did not believe he would have the least desire to try a war with Texas again. [At this stage of the debate, the Senate took its daily recess.] EVENING SESSION. The Senate resumed the consideration of the resolution on the independence of Texas, the question being on the substitute offered by Mr. NORVELL. Mr. PRESTON addressed the Senate at some length, chiefly in reply to Mr. BUCHANAN, urging that former precedents not only warranted but required the express action of Congress at this time, the subject having been referred to them by the President, and the facts being such as not only to justify but demand a recognition. He urged both the impropriety of referring the subject wholly to the President, and his unwillingness to trust with him the whole responsibility. He insisted that for Congress to wait till Mexico should recognise the independence of Texas was at variance with all former precedents. Mr. BUCHANAN, waiving reply, moved to lay the resolution on the table; which motion was negatived, by the following vote: YEAS-Messrs. Brown, Buchanan, Clayton, Davis, Hubbard, King of Alabama, Knight, Morris, Nicholas, Norvell, Page, Prentiss, Ruggles, Swift, Tallmadge, Tipton, Tomlinson, Wall, Wright-19. NAYS-Messrs. Bayard, Benton, Black, Calhoun, Cuthbert, Ewing of Illinois, Fulton, Grundy, Hendricks, Linn, Moore, Mouton, Niles, Parker, Preston, Rives, Robinson, Sevier, Spence, Strange, Walker, White-22. The amendment offered by Mr. NORVELL was lost, by yeas and nays, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Brown, Buchanan, Clayton, Davis, Hubbard, Knight, Morris, Norvell, Page, Prentiss, Ruggles, Swift, Tallmadge, Tomlinson, Wall, Wright-16. NAYS-Messrs. Bayard, Benton, Black, Calhoun, Cuthbert, Ewing of Illinois, Fulton, Grundy, Hendricks, King of Alabama, Linn, Moore, Mouton, Nicholas, Niles, Parker, Preston, Rives, Robinson, Sevier, Spence, Strange, Tipton, Walker, White-25. The original resolution, as offered by Mr. WALKER, was as follows: Resolved, That the State of Texas having established and maintained an independent Government, capable of performing those duties, foreign and domestic, which appertain to independent Governments, and it appearing that there is no longer any reasonable prospect of the successful prosecution of the war by Mex co against said State, it is expedient and proper, and in conformity with the laws of nations and the practice of this Government in like cases, that the independent political existence of said State be acknowledged by the Government of the United States." The question on agreeing to this resolution was decided as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Bayard, Benton, Black, Calhoun, Cuthbert, Ewing of Illinois, Fulton, Grundy, Hendricks, Linn, Moore, Mouton, Niles, Parker, Preston, Rives, Robinson, Ruggles, Sevier, Spence, Strange, Walker, White-23. NAYS-Messrs. Brown, Buchanan, Clayton, Davis, Hubbard, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Knight, Morris, Nicholas, Norvell, Page, Prentiss, Swift, Tallmadge, Tipton, Tomlinson, Wall, Wright--19. So the resolution was agreed to. The announcement of this vote called forth some applause from the gallery, which was promptly checked by the Chair. NAVAL SERVICE. On motion of Mr. DAVIS, the Senate proceeded to [SENATE. the consideration of the bill making appropriations for the naval service for the year 1837. The amendments offered by the committee were adopted. On motion of Mr. RIVES, the bill was further amended, by appropriating $100,000 to launch and secure the United States ship of the line Pennsylvania. Mr. CALHOUN remarked that the balances on hand for the naval service amounted to about $4,800,000. This, with the appropriations of this bill, would make the whole a very large sum, rather greater than the whole expenditure of Government under Mr. Monroe, and about equal to the highest entire expenditure under Mr. Adams. Mr. RIVES replied that these appropriations were in addition to outstanding balances, except where the contrary was expressed in the bill. The objects, he said, were distinct. Former outstanding appropriations were for the completion of works begun; but the objects of the appropriations of this bill were new and distinct. Mr. CALHOUN said he would now say to the Senate that this bill, in connexion with previous appropriations, would put under the control of the Navy Department something like $12,000,000. The bill was then ordered to a third reading, and subsequently read a third time and passed. OLD HARBORS, &c. On motion of Mr. DAVIS, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill making appropriations for certain harbors, and for the removal of obstructions at the mouths of certain rivers. Several amendments from the committee were adopted. On the amendment to this bill, proposed by the committee, for the relief of the citizens of Alexandria, Mr. WRIGHT called for the yeas and nays; which were ordered. He remarked that this amendment was identical with the bill lately passed by the Senate for this purpose, and protested against this mode of legislation, by which members might be compelled either to vote for an amendment having no connexion with the objects of the bill, or to vote against the bill itself. Mr. DAVIS admitted the mode to be generally exceptionable. But the committee, he said, were influenced by the considerations that this measure ought to pass, and that the bill sent to the other House for this purpose, loaded as it was there with other important business, was not likely to pass in that House. He proceeded to show that justice demanded this appropriation for Alexandria, and that the amount would but just place Alexandria on the same footing with Georgetown and Washington, which cities had obtained so much greater aid from Congress on the Holland debt. This amendment was further and earnestly discussed by Messrs. PARKER, WRIGHT, NILES, BUCHANAN, KENT, and PRESTON, and was carried in the affirmative, by the following vote: YEAS-Messrs. Bayard, Black, Buchanan, Clayton, Davis, Ewing of Illinois, Fulton, Hendricks, Kent, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Knight, Linn, Moore, Nicholas, Norvell, Parker, Preston, Rives, Robbins, Sevier, Spence, Walker, White-24. NAYS-Messrs. Benton, Brown, Hubbard, Lyon, Morris, Mouton, Niles, Page, Prentiss, Ruggles, Strange, Swift, Tallmadge, Tipton, Tomlinson, Wall, Wright-17. Mr. HENDRICKS moved to amend the bill by appropriating $50,000 for the improvement of the navigation of the Wabash river. Negatived. Also negatived, an amendment offered by Mr. MOORE, of $100,000 for the completion of the canal around the Muscle shoals, in Tennessee river. |