SENATE.] General Appropriation Bill-Brigs Encomium, Enterprise, and Comet. Mr. WALL moved to amend the bill by an appro priation of $9,900 for Raritan river; which he pressed with great ardor and perseverance, in which he was earnestly supported by Mr. SOUTHARD. After must debate, this amendment was lost in committee: Yeas 16, nays 16; but was carried afterwards in the Senate: Yeas 21, nays 14. An amendment by Mr. WALKER, of $5,000 for the mouth of Pascagoula river, and of $1,000 for that of Pearl river, was lost in committee: Ayes 10, noes not counted; and lost again in Senate: Ayes 12. Mr. LYON moved to increase the $15,000 in the bill, for a pier at the mouth of St. Joseph's river, to $30,000. Negatived. An amendment by Mr. EWING, of Ohio, of $20,000 for the mouth of Maumee river, was lost in Senate. Also, of $12,000, by Mr. LYON, for Kalamazoo river. The bill was then ordered to a third reading. GENERAL APPROPRIATION BILL. Mr. WRIGHT, from the Finance Committee, reported the appropriation bill for the civil and diplomatic expenses of the Government for the year 1837, with numerous amendments; which were agreed to. Mr. WEBSTER moved to amend the bill by inserting $5,000 to complete the law library of Congress, according to a catalogue to be furnished by the Chief Justice of the United States. It was agreed to. Mr. WALKER moved to amend the bill by increasing the salary of the recorder of the General Land Office to $2,500; which was agreed to. Mr. WRIGHT moved to insert $2,000 for the salary of a secretary of legation to Mexico. Agreed to. Mr. PARKER moved to insert $30,000 for the purchase of the manuscripts of Mr. Madison, containing a record of the debates of the convention. Mr. HUBBARD asked the yeas and nays; which, being taken, stood as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Bayard, Black, Brown, Buchanan, Clayton, Crittenden, Ewing of Ohio, Fulton, Hendricks, Kent, Linn, Lyon, Mouton, Norvell, Parker, Preston, Rives, Robinson, Southard, Tallmadge, Walker, Wall, Webster, White, Wright-25. NAYS-Messrs. Calhoun, Davis, Hubbard, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Moore, Nicholas, Niles, Prentiss, Ruggles, Swift, Tipton-12. Mr. BUCHANAN moved for statuary for the eastern front of the Capitol, $8,000. He said he had been advised not to insert the name of any artist, although, from his knowledge of Mr. Persico, (on whose character and talents he pronounced a handsome eulogy,) he was strongly inclined to insert his name here, as it had been in the bill from the House. He, however, would waive doing so, in the hope that Mr. Persico might be appointed to execute the work. Mr. WEBSTER advocated the amendment; but as art, like science, belonged to the world, and not to any particular nation, he was opposed to designating any individual artist, whether an American or a foreigner. The amendment was agreed to. Mr. FULTON moved an amendment for the compensation of the surveyor general of Arkansas, $2,000. Agreed to. Mr. WALKER moved to amend the bill by striking out of the appropriation for the contingent appointment of a diplomatic agent to Texas the words "may receive satisfactory evidence that Texas is an independent Power." Mr. W. advocated the amendment, on the ground that the Senate had this day decided that, in their judgment, Texas was independent. The amendment was negatived, by yeas and nays, as follows: [MARCH 2, 1837. YEAS-Messrs. Bayard, Black, Calhoun, Crittenden, Fulton, Hendricks, Linn, Moore, Mouton, Parker, Preston, Rives, Robinson, Sevier, Walker, White-16. NAYS-Messrs. Brown, Buchanan, Clayton, Davis, Ewing of Ohio, Hubbard, Kent, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Nicholas, Niles, Norvell, Ruggles, Southard, Swift, Tallmadge, Tipton, Tomlinson, Wall, Webster, Wright-21. Mr. PRESTON moved to strike out that part of the bill which relates to the salaries of librarian, assistant librarian, and messengers, with a view to increase them; but it was rejected. On his motion, $400 was appropriated for part pay. ment of the artist who made a bust of the late Chief Justice Ellsworth. Mr. KING, of Georgia, moved an amendment for extra compensation to the judge of the district of East Florida, who had adjudicated on certain private land claims, $1,500, accompanied with a clause repealing the act for this charge in future. It was not agreed to. The bill was then reported to the Senate. The amendments were agreed to, and the bill ordered to its third reading. Several other bills received their third reading, were passed, and sent to the House for concurrence. And the Senate then adjourned. THURSDAY, MARCH 2. BRIGS ENCOMIUM, ENTERPRISE, AND COMET. Mr. CALHOUN said that it would be remembered that on his motion a resolution was adopted, requesting the President to communicate to the Senate the correspondence between this Government and that of Great Britain, in relation to the case of the brigs Encomium and Enterprise. He held in his hand the message of the President in answer to the resolution, from which he found that there was another case (that of the Comet) of a similar character, of which he was not aware when he made his motion, and which occurred as far back as 1832. He had read with care the correspondence, but, he must say, with very little satisfaction. It was all on one side. Our Executive has been knocking, (no, that is too strong a term,) tapping gently at the door of the British Secretary, to obtain justice, for these five years, without receiving an answer, and this in the plainest case imaginable. It was not his intention to censure those who had been intrusted with the correspondence on our part. They had written enough, and more than enough; but truth compelled him to say the tone was not high enough, considering the injustice to our citizens, and the outrage on the flag and honor of the Union. His remarks were intended more especially for the latter part of the correspondence, after the long delay without an answer from the British Government. At first, in so plain a case, little more could be thought necessary than a plain statement of the facts, which was given in a very clear and satisfactory manner in the letter of the Presi dent elect in the case of the Comet. Without repeating what he said on the introduction of the resolution, he would remind the Senate of the facts of the case in the briefest manner possible. The three brigs were engaged in the coasting trade, and, among other passengers, had slaves on board, belonging to our citizens, who were sending them to the Southwestern States, with a view to settlement. The Enterprise was forced, by stress of weather, into Port Hamilton, Bermuda, where the slaves on board were forcibly seized and detained by the local authorities. The other two were wrecked on the Keys belonging to the Bahama islands, and the passengers and crew taken by wreckers, contrary to their wishes, into Nassau, New MARCH 2, 1837.] General Appropriation and Harbor Bills-Road Bill. [SENATE. Providence, where the slaves shared the same fate as at sincerity questionable. This she must see, and to the Bermuda. fact that she does he attributed her long and obstinate silence. These were the essential facts of the case. He did not intend to argue the questions that grew out of them. There was, indeed, little or no ground for argument. No one in the least conversant with the laws of nations can doubt that these vessels were as much under the protection of our flag, while on their voyage, proceeding from one port of the Union to another, as if they were in port, lying at the wharves, within our acknowledged jurisdiction. Nor is it less clear, that forced as the Enterprise was by stress of weather, and taken, under the circumstances that the passengers and crews of the other two were, into the British dominions, they lost none of the rights which belonged to them while on their voyage on the ocean. So far otherwise, so far from losing the protection which our flag gave them while on the ocean, they had superadded, by their misfortunes, the additional rights which the laws of humanity extend to the unfortunate in their situation, and which are regarded by all civilized nations as sacred. It follows, as a necessary consequence, that the municipal laws of the place could not divest the owners of the property which, as citizens of the United States, they had in the slaves who were passengers in the vessels; and yet, as clear as is this conclusion, they were forcibly seized and detained by the local authorities of the islands; and the Government of Great Britain, after five years' negotiation, has not only withheld redress, but has not even deigned to answer the often-repeated application of our Government for redress. We are thus left by its silence to conjecture the reason for so extraordinary a course. On casting his eyes over the whole subject, he could fix on but one that had the least plausibility, and that resting on a principle which it was scarcely credible that a Government so intelligent could assume: he meant the principle that there could not be property in persons. It was not for him to object that Great Britain, or any oth er country, should assume that or any other principle it might think proper, as applicable to its subjects; but he must protest against the right to adopt it as applicable to our country or citizens. It would strike at the independence of our country, and would not be less insulting than outrageous; while it would ill become a nation that was the greatest slaveholder of any on earth, notwithstanding all cant about emancipation, to apply such a principle in her intercourse with others. It is time to speak out boldly on this subject, and to expose freely the folly and hypocrisy of those who accuse others of what, if there be guilt, they are more guilty themselves. Ours is not the only mode in which man may have dominion over man. The principle which would abrogate the propetry of our citizens in their slaves would equal ly abrogate the dominion of Great Britain over the subject nations under her control. If one individual can have no property in another, how can one nation, which is but an aggregate of individuals, have dominion, which involves the highest right of property, over another? If man has, by nature, the right of self-government, have not nations, on the same principle, an equal right? And if the former forbids one individual from having property in another individual, does not the other equally forbid one nation holding dominion over another? How inconsistent would it be in Great Britain to withhold redress for injustice to our citizens committed in the West Indies, on the ground that persons could not be property, while in the East Indies she exercises unlimited dominion over more than a hundred millions of human beings, whose labor she controls as effectually as our citizens do that of their slaves! It is not to be credited that she will venture to assume, in her relation with us, a principle so utterly indefensible, and which could not but expose her to imputations which would make her But it may be asked, why, then, does she not make reparation at once in so clear a case? Why not restore the slaves, or make ample compensation to their owners? He could imagine but one motive: she had among her subjects many whose fanatical feelings on this subject she was unwilling to offend; but, while respecting the feelings of her subjects, blind and misdirected as they are, she ought not to forget that our Government is also bound to respect the feelings of its citizens. Let her remember that, if to respect the rights which our citizens have over their slaves be offensive to any portion of her subjects, how much more so would it be to our citizens for our Government to acquiesce in her refusal to respect our right to establish the relation which one por. tion of our population shall have to another, and how unreasonable it would be for her to expect that our Government should be more indifferent to the feelings of its citizens than hers to any portion of her subjects. He, with every lover of his country, on both sides, desired sincerely to see the peace and harmony of the two countries preserved; but he held that the only condition on which they could possibly be preserved was that of perfect equality and a mutual respect for their respective institutions; and he could not but see that a perseverance in withholding redress in these cases must, in the end, disturb the friendly relations which now so happily exist between the two countries. He hoped, on resuming the correspondence, our Government would press the claim for redress in a manner far more earnest and becoming the importance of the subject than it has heretofore done. It seemed to him that a vast deal too much had been said about the decision of the courts and the acts of the British Government than ought to have been. They have little or nothing to do with the case, and can have no force whatever against the grounds on which our claims for justice stand. However binding on their own subjects, or foreigners voluntarily entering her dominions, they can have no binding effect whatever, where misfortune, such as in these cases, placed our citizens within her jurisdiction. If they be properly presented, and pressed on the attention of the British Government, he could not doubt but that speedy and ample justice would be done. It could not be withheld but by an open refusal to do justice, which he could not anticipate. As to himself, he should feel bound, as one of the representatives from the slaveholding States, which had a peculiar and deep interest in the question, to bring this case annually before Congress, so long as he held a seat on this floor, if redress shall be so long withheld. GENERAL APPROPRIATION AND HARBOR The bill making appropriations for the civil and diplomatic expenses of the Government for the year 1837, and the bill making appropriations for certain (old) harbors, &c. for 1837, were severally read a third time, and passed; the latter by the following vote: YEAS-Messrs. Benton, Buchanan, Clayton, Davis, Ewing of Illinois, Ewing of Ohio, Fulton, Grundy, Hendricks, Kent, Knight, Linn, McKean, Morris, Mouton, Nicholas, Norvell, Robbins, Robinson, Ruggles, Southard, Tallmadge, Tipton, Wall, Webster, Wright-26. NAYS-Messrs. Calhoun, Clay, Hubbard, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Moore, Parker, Preston, Rives, Strange, Walker, White-12. ROAD BILL. The bill making appropriations for the repair and con SENATE.] Texas Distribution Question. struction of certain roads (including the Cumberland road) having been taken up Mr. NORVELL, after making a few remarks, moved to strike out the fourth section, which provides for the repayment of the appropriation for the road out of the two per cent. fund. The question on the amendment being taken by yeas and nays, it was rejected, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Black, Buchanan, Calhoun, Clay, Clayton, Crittenden, Davis, Hubbard, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Knight, Lyon, McKean, Moore, Norvell, Preston, Ruggles, Southard, Spence, Webster, White-21. NAYS-Messrs. Brown, Cuthbert, Dana, Ewing of Il linois, Ewing of Ohio, Fulton, Grundy, Hendricks, Kent, Linn, Morris, Nicholas, Niles, Robbins, Robinson, Sevier, Strange, Swift, Tallmadge, Tipton, Tomlinson, Wright-22. The bill was then ordered to a third reading, and passed. TEXAS. Mr. RUGGLES moved a reconsideration of the vote by which the resolution relative to recognising the independence of Texas was adopted, in order that he might change his vote, which was given, under misapprehension, in the affirmative. Mr. WALKER was opposed to the motion, because he regarded it as a violation of the spirit of the rule, at least. If the vote were reconsidered, the result as to the resolution would not be disturbed. Being satisfied that this would be the case, and as time was now so precious, he felt it his duty to move to lay the motion of reconsideration on the table. Mr. W. withdrew the motion at the request of Mr. CALHOUN, who said he concurred with the Senator from Mississippi in what he had said as to the rule. And Mr. C. did not regard the motion of the Senator from Maine as going the whole length of reconsideration; all that he wanted was to correct his vote. Mr. C. renewed the motion to lay the motion of reconsideration on the table. Mr. HUBBARD asked for the yeas and nays, which were ordered; and the question was determined in the negative: Yeas 23, nays 25, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Bayard, Benton, Black, Calhoun, Clay, Cuthbert, Ewing of Illinois, Fulton, Grundy, Hendricks, Ken', Linn, Lyon, Moore, Mouton, Nicholas, Parker, Preston, Robinson, Sevier, Strange, Walker, White-23. NAYS-Messrs. Brown, Buchanan, Clayton, Crittenden, Davis, Ewing of Ohio, Hubbard, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Knight, McKean, Morris, Norvell, Page, Prentiss, Robbins, Ruggles, Southard, Swift, Tallmage, Tipton, Tomlinson, Wall, Webster, Wright-25. The question then recurred on the motion to reconsider the vote by which the resolution was adopted, which was decided in the negative, as follows--the votes being equal: YEAS-Messrs. Brown, Buchanan, Clayton, Davis, Ewing of Ohio, Hubbard, Kent, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Knight, McKean, Morris, Norvell, Page, Prentiss, Ruggles, Southard, Swift, Tallmadge, Tipton, Tomlinson, Wall, Webster, Wright--24. NAYS--Messrs. Bayard, Benton, Black, Calhoun, Clay, Crittenden, Cuthbert, Ewing of Illinois, Fulton, Grundy, Hendricks, Linn, Lyon, Moore, Mouton, Nicholas, Parker, Preston, Rives, Robinson, Sevier, Strange, Walker, White--24. DISTRIBUTION QUESTION. A message having been received from the House of Representatives, disagreeing to the amendment of the Senate in striking out the 2d section of the fortification bill, providing for the distribution of the surplus revenue among the States- [MARCH 2, 1837. Mr. WRIGHT moved that the Senate do insist upon its amendment. Mr. CALHOUN expressed his hope that the Senate would recede, and not resist an expression of the will of the Representatives of the people, given by so decided a majority as was said to have voted in the other House. Mr. CLAY said it was at least in order to indulge in suppositions as to what had passed elsewhere; and supposing the land bill to have been rejected in the other House, (a fact he rejoiced to hear,) could any Senator doubt that there would remain a large surplus in the Treasury, especially if other measures which had passed the Senate, and which contemplated large expenditures, should follow the fate of the land bill? He urged the propriety of submitting to an expression of the popular will, so distinctly manifested as it had now been. Was it not wisdom to look ahead?--to provide for the future? If a surplus accumulated, was it not better to return it to the people of the several States than to leave it in the hands of the deposite banks? As sylvania [Mr. BUCHANAN] in regard to his favor for a land to what had lately been said by the Senator from Pennbill he had formerly had the honor to introduce, and the favorable prospects of that bill, Mr. C. had not seen any indications in the course of the Senate which would encourage much hope for that measure, (though Mr. C. did not finally relinquish hope in regard to it;) but although he should infinitely prefer such a disposition of the surplus revenue as that bill proposed, he would accept, as an alternative measure, the distribution clause inserted by the other House in the fortification bill, rather than leave the money in the deposite banks. Mr. C. said that the country owed its thanks to the other House for what it had recently done; he rejoiced to see light breaking out in that glorious quarter, so immediately related to the people; and was it possible that a majority of the Senate would oppose the ascertained popular will in relation to the disposition of the surplus revenue? The Senate had tried the House once, and they insisted on the amendment. They knew the ground on which they stood; they well knew that they were with the people in the stand they had taken. Would the Senate, with all these facts before them, repeat the vote they had before given? He trusted not. He put it to the majority, who held the power of this body, whether they would not yield to the wishes of the people--wishes known not merely by the course of channels, so that it was impossible to mistake it? Would their Representatives, but through a thousand other gentlemen insist on leaving the public money in the hands of the deposite banks, and under such an agency as now superintended them? Mr. CRITTENDEN made some remarks. He was understood to refer to the reproaches cast on him, and those who voted with him, on a former occasion, for the loss of the fortification bill; and to ask, if the fortification bill should now be lost, at whose door the blame would lie? Mr. CALHOUN said the naked question was, whether the surplus revenue should be left in the deposite banks, or should be returned to the people to whom it belonged. The question was now taken, and decided, by yeas and nays, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Benton, Black, Brown, Buchanan, Cuthbert, Dana, Ewing of Illinois, Fulton, Grundy, Hubbard, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Linn, Lyon, Mouton, Nicholas, Niles, Norvell, Page, Parker, Rives, Ruggles, Sevier, Strange, Tallmadge, Walker, Wall, Wright--28. NAYS-Messrs. Bayard, Calhoun, Clay, Clayton, Crittenden, Davis, Ewing of Ohio, Hendricks, Kent, Knight, McKean, Moore, Morris, Prentiss, Preston, MARCH 3, 1837.] Falmouth and Alexandria Railroad-Distribution Question, &c. Robbins, Southard, Spence, Swift, Tomlinson, Webster, So it was resolved that the Senate insist on their amendment; and it was ordered that the House be notified accordingly. FALMOUTH AND ALEXANDRIA RAILROAD. The bill to aid the Falmouth and Alexandria Railroad Company to construct their road within the District of Columbia having undergone much debate, and some amendments, the Senate took a recess. EVENING SESSION. The Senate informally passed over the bill under consideration, and took up the bill for the relief of Furley Kellogg; which was ordered to a third reading. They then took up the Indian appropriation bill, which had come from the House with amendments, covering the expenses of several Indian treaties on our Northwestern frontier, and sundry minor items for examining the country to the southwest of Missouri, and into the depredations in Florida previous to the war, and for the salaries of additional Indian agents. After some remarks by Mr. WHITE, objections by Mr. SEVIER, and replies by Mr. TIPTON, the amendments were concurred in. FALMOUTH AND ALEXANDRIA RAILROAD. The Senate then resumed the bill respecting the railroad to Fredericksburg. Mr. HUBBARD strenuously opposed the amendments to the bill, which, as he stated, went to appropriate $300,000 to the construction of the road. He asked the yeas and nays. Mr. PARKER replied, contending that the money was to be spent exclusively within the District of Columbia, by which all constitutional objection was removed. Mr. PRESTON advocated the amendments, stated the miserable state of the road at present, and asked why, when public works were made toward every other point of the compass, the moment any thing was proposed towards the South it was strenuously opposed. After a desultory debate, in which Mr. KENT, Mr. HUBBARD, Mr. PRESTON, Mr. WALKER, Mr. NORVELL, Mr. SWIFT, Mr. RIVES, Mr. BUCHANAN, Mr. PARKER, Mr. HENDRICKS, Mr. BROWN, and Mr. LYON, took part, and in which the constitutional objections to the measure were discussed, (the bill being zealously advocated, especially by Mr. PARKER,) the bill was slightly amended, and then ordered to its third reading, by yeas and nays, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Brown, Cuthbert, Ewing of Illinois, Ewing of Ohio, Fulton, Hendricks, Kent, King of Georgia, Lian, Mouton, Norvell, Parker, Preston, Rives, Robinson, Southard Strange, Tipton, Walker--19. NAYS--Messrs. Black, Buchanan, Calhoun, Clayton, Hubbard, King of Alabama, Lyon, Nicholas, Niles, Page, Prentiss, Sevier, Swift, Tallmadge, Tomlinson, Wall, White--17. The Senate then proceeded to the consideration of executive business, and remained engaged in it until a late hour, and then adjourned. FRIDAY, MARCH 3. The various standing committees were successively discharged from the consideration of all subjects before them on which they had not reported. DISTRIBUTION QUESTION. A message was received from the House of Representatives, stating that the House insisted in its disagreement 1022 [SENATE. Mr. STRANGE insisted on his objection, and complained that the valley of the Mississippi should be made, by this legislation, to swallow up all the bounty of the Government. Mr. DAVIS advocated the amendments, the details of which he explained and defended seriatim, and pressed a concurrence. The vote was then taken, and resulted as follows: For concurrence 31, against it 11. So the amendments to the harbor bill were concurred in. NAVY PENSION FUND. Mr. RIVES, from the Committee on Naval Affairs, reported a recommendation that the Senate disagree to the amendments from the House of Representatives to pension fund. the bill for the more equitable administration of the navy Mr. R. explained the ground of the recommendation. The bill of the Senate went to raise the pensions of the widows of officers before March, 1835, to the level of those since that date, while the amendment of the House proposed to cut down the pensions since 1835 to the level of those before that time. to, and the Senate disagreed to the amendment from the The recommendation of the committee was assented House. DISTRIBUTION QUESTION. A message was received from the House of Representatives, informing the Senate that the House adliered to its disagreement to the amendments of the Senate to the fortification bill. Mr. WRIGHT thereupon moved that the Senate adhere to its amendment. Mr. CALHOUN observed that this was a very important amendment indeed, and one which he deeply regretted the committee had deemed it proper to report. He could not consent to sit by in silence, and suffer the question to be taken, without at least requesting to hear some reason why an amendment of this character had been reported. If there should be a large surplus in the SENATE.] Distribution Question. Treasury, as there was every reason to expect there would be, the natural and proper distribution of it was obviously to return it to the people. He could not but express bis surprise that the committee should expect the Senate to strike out an amendment of this importance, simply on their recommendation. Mr. WRIGHT said that it was not his purpose to occupy the time of the Senate at this late period of the session. None knew better than the Senator from South Carolina the nature of the amendment, and the bearings of the whole question. The subject was as well understood by every member of the Senate as it I could be by the committee. The section which the House of Representatives had added to this bill was precisely the bill introduced at the commencement of the session by the honorable gentleman from South Carolina himself, which had been referred to the Finance Committee, and long since reported on. Surely the gentleman did not expect a written report on a bill referred but yesterday, and embracing a subject of such vast magnitude. The amendment involved as important a question as ever had been submitted to Congress; and if this had been the first time the Senate had ever heard of it, there would have been great propriety in requiring either a written report, or at least some verbal explanation in regard to it. But Mr. W. did not feel bound, as the case stood, to make a long report on a matter with which every body was familiar, and on which he could not suggest a single new idea. A report, under such circumstances, would, if made, change no opinion. This was the simple explanation which he had to make (so far as he was personally concerned) in reply to the call of the honorable Senator from South Carolina. By the committee the subject of a written, report had not once been mentioned. For himself, he considered the section which had been added to the bill as completely disconnected with the subject-matter of the bill as it left the Senate, as one thing could be distinct from another. It was in fact an important act of independent legislation. All the members of the Senate were acquainted with Mr. W's opinions on the principles of the measure proposed by the amendment, and he should not, therefore, detain the Senate or waste its time by stating them. Mr. W. offered this explanation as an apology for the absence of a report on the amendment; whether it would prove acceptable to the Senator from South Carolina, he could not say. Mr. CALHOUN said he now understood the Senator from New York to rest the question of concurrence in the amendment on the discussion which had taken place at the last session. To this be could have no objection; for, so triumphant had been the argument last year in favor of the distribution bill, that the gentleman had been left in a minority of six against the whole Senate. As no reason had since intervened to change the circumstances of the case, Mr. C. was content to rest the issue as it had then been made. A more triumphant argument he had never listened to; and, such had been its irresist ible force, that it had broken through the bonds of party discipline, and compelled gentlemen to leave their party and vote for the bill. He would not repeat it, but he would ask those Senators who had at the last session felt and admitted its force, and had voted for the distribution bill, whether they would now change their ground, without a single argument having been urged in reply. Surely the Senator from New York was bound to show some difference in the case, which should induce those who had voted for distribution last year to vote against it now. The Senator from New York owed this to gentlemen of his own side, if he expected them thus to turn about in the face of the world. Mr. WRIGHT rejoined. He was bound to say that the principles which had governed his own course re [MARCH 3, 1837. mained unchanged, without recriminating on any who now differed from him. It was unimportant to him for what reasons other gentlemen might have changed their ground; but he supposed and believed, and so did the gentleman from South Carolina, that the surplus actually existing at the last session, and that which was then certainly anticipated, and which must be disposed of in some way, had governed the action of gentlemen who then voted for the bill. And if the same state of things were certain now, they would act in conformity with it. Mr. W. had no doubt that all those gentlemen who voted for the bill of the last session had acted just as conscientiously as he had himself done in voting against it. He admitted that the opinions which he had at that time held on the subject of the surplus had, to some extent, proved erroneous. But surely the Senator from South Carolina would not call upon him for the reasons which actuated others. If gentlemen should act differently on this occasion from the manner in which they had acted at the last session, the Senator would, no doubt, find them ready to vindicate their course, and much more able than himself to explain the considerations which actuated them. He trusted that this would supersede the censure of the honorable gentleman. Mr. CLAY hoped that the question would be decided by yeas and nays. The proposition adopted, said he, by the House of Representatives, and now sent to this body for its concurrence, is, that any surplus revenue which may remain in the Treasury on the 1st of January next, beyond the wants of the Government, shall, after retaining five millions, be distributed among the States. If at that time there shall be no surplus, the bill will have, of course, no effect; if there be, it will. What are the objections to concurring? We have been favored with very few on this occasion. I would ask of the honorable Senator from New York [Mr. WRIGHT] whether it is his intention that, in case there shall be a large surplus, it is to remain in the deposite banks which have now the custody of the public money, at an interest to the Government of two per cent.? Does the honorable Senator think that that is a prudent and proper disposition of the public funds? A great central State in our neighbor. hood has, I understand, directed that her portion of the surplus distributed in January last be placed in banks, paying for it an interest of 6 per cent.; and there was not any difficulty in the arrangement. Does the Senator consider it as a wise and proper financial operation to keep the money of the United States in deposite banks, at an interest of two per cent., when, for the same mo. ney, the Government might obtain six per cent. on adequate security? I am anxious to know what is to be the policy of the coming administration on this subject. [Mr. WRIGHT. Their policy is to have no surplus ] Mr. CLAY resumed. Then take the land bill, like an honest man. There is the remedy. That will be bet ter than your restrictive measures on the sale of the public lands, which throw open 180 millions of acres at a time. I should be glad, I say, to know what the administration policy is to be; the country has a right to know. The honorable Senator was stout last session in his denial that there would be a surplus: oh, no; there would be no surplus-no surplus. At length, however, he was obliged to admit that there would be some-a little; but how did it turn out? We all know. Well, if there is to be a surplus in January, what is to be done with it? Is it to be kept in the deposite banks at two per cent. interest? Is that your calculation? Is that the policy you will announce to the people? Why, what do the daily developments which are taking place demonstrate? Do they not prove that these deposite banks are but so many mere political machines? Have you seen the appli cation recently made by one of the banks in the city of New York for a share of the public money? The great |