H. OF R.] Surplus Revenue. close we are thus addressed: "As our income will not probably then exceed our current expenditures, we must rely entirely upon what surplus we may have to defray all the expenses which may become necessary in extinguishing Indian titles to land," &c. So spake the prophets six months since. And now, up jumps the chairman of the Ways and Means, "modest as Morning when she eyes the youthful Phœbus," and full of the same inspiration that burned in the bosom of the seer in July last, and, in the same solemn prophetic tones, he tells us our income will exceed our expenditures. Now we are admonished not to husband any sur. plus we may have, but to reduce the revenue by seven millions in the next year and a half, so that no surplus whatever shall remain. [JAN. 12, 1837. are such as ought at once to be responded to by every true-hearted American. That the principles contained in that report are the sentiments of a great majority of the people of New Hampshire, I have not the least doubt. Yes, sir, I think that I should do my constituents great injustice, should I neglect to declare here in my place, and on this occasion, that their opinion is, that this reform should have been completed at the commencement of the last session of Congress. I am wholly ignorant of their wants, if their wishes and desires are not in favor of reducing the revenue at once to the wants of an economical Government, and for limiting the sales of the public lands also to actual settlers. A large majority of that people believe that government is instituted for the general good of the whole community, and that the Government should carry on its operations upon the principles of a close and rigid economy. That no more money should be abstracted from the pockets of the people than what may be necessary for the support of the Gov. ernment upon those principles. Consequently, they are opposed to a high tariff for the purpose of raising money to be expended under the superintendence of the General Government, in constructing railroads and canals, or any other internal improvements, which fall within the limits of what has been denominated the great American system. In a word, they believe that they have capacity to manage their own property in their own way, and that they ought to have the privilege of so doing, excepting so far as they are constitutionally bound to contribute to the support of the Government. Sir, when I see with what ruthless hand the commit. tee has torn to pieces every shred of character for either ability or fidelity of the Secretary of the Treasury, and how with the same destructive appetency they have trampled down the authority of the President himself; and, lastly, when I see with what ridiculous gravity these two reports of the some committee, differing only six months in their ages, contradict each other, I hope the gentlemen will pardon the degrading analogy, but really I can think of nothing like them but the celebrated "cats of Kilkenny;" they have at last literally swallowed each other. Sir, I have done with this subject. I know I have detained the House already too long; for this I must find an apology in the fact that I had not the most distant thought of addressing the House on this subject till the afternoon of yesterday. Without further time for arrangement of topics, I could not hope to pre- This privilege they would always enjoy without molestserve that order which is so favorable to brevity as well ation, were it not for a few individuals in our country, as perspicuity. Let me again implore the House to put who seem to think that they are entitled to the peculiar this subject at once at rest. The worst evil that can care and protection of the Government. But, sir, this come is a surplus of a few millions; and even this the assumption is not well founded. The constitution of the highest officer in the Government connected with your United States gives equal rights and equal privileges to financial system tells you is impossible. But if it should the whole American people. It was upon this basis the occur, send it, as you have done before, to the States, Government was founded; and it is this fact that gives so where it can be used as well as kept. If this surplus is much harmony and consistency to the whole system. It an evil, in that way you can rid yourselves of it as easily is this equality of rights which has thus far, and which I as the shipwrecked apostle shook off the serpent that hope and trust always will, bind the people so closely to fastened upon his hand. At all events, let your people the republican institutions of our country, and to the rest one year from your miserable experiments. Let. Union of the States. I believe that the foregoing senti your former blunders teach you some caution. In your ments are in perfect accordance with the opinion of attempt to bring about a gold currency you have flood- the great apostle of democracy, (Mr. Jefferson,) noted the land with bank notes. In destroying the United withstanding the manufacturers, both in this House and States Bank monopoly you have raised up a greater elsewhere, quote him as an authority for giving encourmonopoly in public lands. Now you are to try the ex- agement and protection to domestic manufactures. That periment of breaking down what are called in this re- Mr. Jefferson was in favor of encouraging domestic manport the "princely establishments of the North." Sir, ufactures I readily grant; but that he was in favor of giv you will not, cannot, at least now, effect this last and ing them any exclusive advantages over other branches of most cruel experiment. Let us then put this bill quiet- industry I deny. And it would seem, also, that those who to to sleep somewhere; let it rest in peace till 1842; have been in the habit of quoting that venerable gentlethen, perhaps, it may reappear amongst us under other man-that distinguished patriot and statesman-as an inauspices, and with better claims to our regard. fallible authority upon this subject, suppose that he was in favor of the system as it is now pursued in this country, of forming manufacturing towns and cities like unto those of Birmingham and Manchester. But, sir, if gentlemen will only compare Mr. Jefferson's opinion upon this subject with that which was uttered on a different occasion, and a different subject, they must be convinced that he alluded to a very different system of conducting domestic manufactures from the one which has been pursued in this country. My opinion is, that he alluded to those which should be literally domestic; to those, and those only, which should be carried on around the domestic fireside. In that case, the natural alliance between agriculture and manufactures would have remained unbroken, and consequently the conflicting interests which now prevail would never have been heard of in our halls of legislation. When Mr. CORWIN had taken bis seat, Mr. CUSHMAN rose and addressed the Chair as follows: Mr. Speaker: The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. LAWRENCE] has asked, in a very strong and emphatic manner, whether there is any member from New Hampshire, as well as from some other States in New Eng. land, who will rise in his place, and declare himself to be in favor of the principles contained in the report of the Committee of Ways and Means, relative to a modifi cation of the "tariff," so as to bring the revenue down to the actual wants of the Government. At a time like the present, when, by a wise and judicious administration of the General Government for the last eight years, the public debt has been entirely extinguished, a surplus revenue of more than forty millions has been accumulated, it appears to me that the sentiments contained in that report There, sir, the husbandman, with the male portion of his family, is employed in growing the flax and the wool, while the good housewife, with her daughters, are engaged at the spinning-wheel and the loom, manufac turing wearing apparel sufficient for the wardrobe of each member of the family. This was the system of donestic manufactures to which that wise and patriotic statesman alluded. The other supposition would make him contradict himself, wherein he compares great cities to great sores upon the body politic. How much better the family system would be to the country than the other I shall not now stop to inquire. But I think that every candid and impartial mind will admit that it would be of infinitely more service to the country to raise up a hardy, intelligent, and virtuous race of agriculturists, and housewife economists, than a sickly and feeble race of operatives. It is a fact, however, that the manufactories in this country, especially in the Eastern States, have been multiplied, one after another, upon almost every waterfall, till the wild and uninhabited deserts have been transformed into populous manufacturing cities. And those capitalists who have invested their funds in those great and expensive establishments have thought, and I doubt not sincerely thought, that they were entitled to some exclusive rights and privileges. Hence they have, from time to time, with great pertinacity, urged their claims upon the consideration of Congress, to grant them protection by excessive and onerous duties upon foreign importations. These solicitations have not been disre. garded; but, on the other hand, Congress has, in compliance with the importunities of a few capitalists, levied upon the indispensable necessaries of life the most unrighteous and oppressive duties. With this oppressive system of taxation, however, the people have borne without a murmur until the United States debt was entirely extinguished. This having been accomplished, and a surplus revenue of more than forty millions having been accumulated, what could be more reasonable or natural than an expectation on the part of the people that Congress would forthwith relieve them from an oppressive system of taxation? Not only oppressive, but unjust and unconstitutional. They know very well that the United States do not want the money, because the General Government has already been obliged to acknowledge her incompetency to keep what she now has. They believe, also, that the time has arrived when even the manufacturer, as avaricious as he may be, must admit that he needs not the aid of the Government to enable him to carry forward his operations. And the cotton manufacturer readily grants that he can successfully compete with the whole world, save in the printed or stamped fabrics. I have no doubt that the time has arrived when the woollen manufacturer ought to make the same acknowledgment. I believe that it is universally acknowledged, by machinists of the first reputation, that the machinery used in our manfactories has been carried to much greater perfection in this country than in Europe. And, although the laborer commands more wages here than in Europe, (which I hope will always be the case,) yet, owing to the difference in the labor-saving machinery, as well as to the fact that our operatives perform much more labor in the same given period of time than they do in Great Britain, make their aggregate expense about the same to the British manufacturer that it is to the American. I do not vouch for the truth of the above facts, yet I am free to confess that I most firmly believe their truth; and the reason that I believe them so is, because they have been communicated to me by those who had the means of knowledge, and by those in whose statements I have perfect confidence. Is it not a fact that the great body of the American [H. OF R. people are now paying, and for years past have been compelled to pay, much more for coarse woollens than they ought to pay? Is it not a fact also that broadcloths are selling in the market for four, five, and six dollars per yard, the actual cost of which does not exceed one dollar and a quarter? If the above facts be true, then it is very evident that our manufacturers are receiving a most enormous interest for the capital which they have invested. I trust, therefore, that Congress will no longer tax the many for the benefit of the few. Another very important question, sir, has been propounded by the gentleman from Massachusetts, which ought to receive a brief reply. The gentleman has asked, with much warmth, and with strong emphasis, whether there is a concert of action upon this subject in the administration party of this House. I trust in God that there is a concert of action upon this all-important measure by the administration party in this House and out of this House. Not, sir, that the friends of the administration, excepting so far as the honorable Committee of Ways and Means may be concerned, have compared mind with mind upon this subject; yet I hope and trust that there is a concert of action, growing out of a common political faith, which will enable the majority of this House now to perform what should have been done during the last session of Congress. Whether there be a concert of action here or not, one thing is certain: that there is a concert of action among the people, which will, in due time, force its way hither, and produce a concert of action here, which will relieve them from their oppressive burdens. Is it from a belief that there is a concert of action in the administration party of this House, or is it from a conscious conviction, on the part of the opposition, that the tariff ought to be reduced, that makes them so sensitive about touching what they are pleased to call the compromise act? We are implored again and again not to disturb this act, as it would be a breach of faith; that it would be an act of injustice to the manufacturer. I would be the last man to disturb any legislative act, or to impair in the slightest degree any article of compact, so long as it shall be for the public good not to do so. But, sir, when the public good requires the repeal, alteration, or modification, of any act of legislation, either of a public or a private character, I am prepared to act forthwith. Unless this is done, the enactments of legislative assemblies will become the engines of tyranny, oppression, and injustice, instead of being a blessing to the country, and the purposes of legislation be defeated. It is said, however, that the tariff act of 1833 was the result of compromise relative to several conflicting interests of the country, therefore it ought not to receive any modification until the time therein mentioned shall have expired. Almost all enactments, to a greater or less extent, are the result of compromise, and should not be disturbed so long as they shall promote the general welfare of the people. But, I repeat, sir, that when the public interest does require repeal or modification of any law, whether public or private, it is the duty of the Legislature forthwith to correct all existing evils, so far as it may be in the power of legislation to effect that object. if these principles are correct, then no one should hesitate for a moment so to modify the tariff as shall reduce the revenue of the United States to the wants of the Government. Although it is denied by the gentleman from Massachusetts that there is now any sur plus on hand, yet upon what principle of mathematics he comes to such a conclusion I cannot imagine. According to the evidence which I have received upon this subject, I again affirm there is a surplus revenue of more than forty millions now in deposite, subject to the draft of the United States. Mr. Speaker, if gentlemen will take the trouble to H. OF R.] Surplus Revenue. look into the compromise act, as they please to term it, they will find that there is no such sanctity as they have attempted to cast around it. No, sir; but, on the contrary, they will find that it contains a clause which provides for the very state of affairs in which we find ourselves. This provision declares "that nothing herein contained shall be so construed as to prevent the passage, prior or subsequent to the said thirtieth day of June, one thousand eight hundred and forty-two, of any act or acts, from time to time, that may be necessary to detect, prevent, or punish, evasions of the duties or imposts imposed by law, or to prevent the passage of any act prior to the thirtieth day of June, eighteen hundred and fortytwo, in the contingency either of excess or deficiency of revenue, so as to adjust the revenue to either of said con-tingencies." Yet, sir, notwithstanding the above-mentioned provisions, we are told that it would be sacrilege to touch the tariff. And the ostensible reason, which has been repeated again and again, why we must not modify the above-mentioned act, is, because it would be a breach of the public faith. But, sir, is this the cause why gentlemen are so extremely sensitive upon this subject, or is it because it may in some measure affect the interests of a few private individuals? But, sir, supposing there had been a deficiency of public revenue to meet the expenses of the Government, what then would be the language of those gentlemen who are so very sensitive relative to the preservation of the public faith? Would it in that case be treason to disturb the compromise bill? No, sir; in such a crisis of affairs, if the friends of the administration did not come forward, by concert of action, to provide for the deficiency, we should be told that we were not only sacri. ficing the interests of the manufacturers of our country, but that we were sacrificing the country herself. I readily grant that if there had been a deficiency of revenue to meet the wants of the Government, then the tariff ought to be revised immediately, and the duties so increased upon the importation of foreign merchandise as would at once supply that deficiency. And as there is a great surplus of public revenue, upon the same principle, I now here in my place, on behalf of the people of my own State, as well as for the whole country, demand a modification of the tariff, so that the revenue of the United States may be brought to the wants of the Government. I hope that the voice of the people, through their representatives upon this floor, may be heard, and their expectations forthwith gratified. For, sir, I am firmly persuaded that, unless there is a modification of the tariff this session, so as to relieve the people from the present unjust, unrighteous, and oppressive taxation of the necessaries of life-their daily consumptions-that they will petition the President to assemble a new Congress. But, sir, if the friends of the administration, as well as of the country, will do their duty, a modification of the tariff and the limitation of the sale of the public lands may be effected the present session of Congress; and unless the rights of the great body of the people are to be yielded up to the importunities of a few interested individuals, this desirable object will be accomplished. I say a few individuals, for that portion of our fellow-citizens who have invested their surplus capital in domestic manufactures compose only a fraction of one eighth of the business men of the country. Yes, sir, seven eighths of the business men of our country are agriculturists--the cultivators of the soil-the actual producers of the indispensable necessaries of life. And although those who have an invested interest in domestic manufactures, as well as the operatives, are entitled to great respect, yet how much better it would be for the country to raise up a hardy, industrious, intelligent, and virtuous race of [JAN. 12, 1837. yeomanry, than a pale and sickly race of operatives, which are collected together in our manufacturing cities. It does appear to me that, if any class of people on earth is entitled to exclusive privileges, it is those who are engaged in husbandry. Yet this valuable class of our fellow-citizens, which, as I have before observed, compose the country, have claimed no such distinction. As a justification for the clamor which the manufacturers have constantly made at the doors of the National Legislature, they have even again and again asserted that the agriculturists have been protected in their great and important interests, by a duty imposed upon the importation of foreign grains. But, without dwelling longer upon this point, I will only ask the attention of the House, as well as the country, to the following astounding facts, contained in a statement from the Treasury Department, wherein it will be seen that the duty on foreign grain imported into the United States annually, from 1826 to 1835, inclusive, has virtually been no protection to the agriculturist. Let the statement speak for itself: In the year 1826, on wheat Do 122 50 Do 30 70 Do 208 10 Do 67 70 Do 124 70 1834, do 300 50, do 178 30 1835, do It is also mentioned, in the same communication from the Treasury Department, that "the amount of duties which accrued in 1836 have not been adjusted; but from the quantity imported, as far as ascertained, it is estimated that the duties on wheat will have amounted in that year to $125,000, and on oats to $15,000." What an insult this, to this great and highly meritori ous class of people! Here we perceive that, in a time of plenty, there is a duty of a few hundred dollars upon foreign grain, to protect the great agricultural interests of the United States; and, sir, in a time of comparative scarcity, what is the amount of duties upon the above description of foreign grains? Why, sir, the enormous sum of one hundred and forty thousand dollars! While the agriculturists are receiving this pitiful protection, they are paying a duty on salt alone, to say nothing of the enormous duties on iron and steel, and all the other necessaries of life, of seven hundred thousand dollars. From the above table of duties it will appear that, in a time of plenty, the quantity of foreign grain imported into the United States is very limited, so that the asser tion is virtually true, that it affords no protection to the agricultural interests of the country. I think they will grant that they need no protection, and that they desire none excepting that which is to be derived from an equitable system of laws, and the watchful care of a kind and merciful Providence. It is said, however, by the advocates of the tariff, that if the farmer does not receive any benefit from the duty imposed upon the importation of foreign grain in a time of plenty, yet he feels its influence in a time of scarcity. But, sir, I believe that in a time of scarcity, of want, and of privation, the American agriculturist would spurn from him the suggestion of increasing his wealth at the expense of his unfortunate neighbor. Yes, sir, this class of people have too much generosity, humanity, and magnanimity, to take advantage of such a regulation, in order crops have been providentially cut down by an untimely to enhance the price of their own grain to one whose grain as you please, still the price of domestic bread frost. No, si; at such a tinie import as much foreign stuffs will be high enough to satisfy every husbandman whose disposition is not corroded by avarice. Mr. Speaker, much has been said, during the time this subject has been under discussion, of home industry. Is home industry entirely dependent upon those who are interested in domestic manufactures? Where is the agriculturist? Has he nothing to do in promoting home industry? Where is the merchant, who is carrying on an extensive and flourishing commerce? Ought he not to come in for a share of the praise for encouraging home industry? Where are all those who are engaged in the mechanic arts? Are they not also advocates for home industry? Does home industry depend upon collecting together three or four thousand females, to spin and weave in a factory? Could not these same females be just as industrious at the paternal fireside as when hud. dled together in a manufacturing city? My belief is that they could, and that it would ultimately be much more conducive to their own welfare if they would remain under the watchful eye of an affectionate mother, and in her presence, and under her direction, attend to domestic manufactures in the family circle. [H. or R. when this instrument was laid before the several State conventions for ratification, what would have been the result of the deliberations of those conventions? Would the constitution of the United States have been adopted? No, sir, never. It would have been rejected as a tyrannical and oppressive form of government, fit only for the protection of a few monopolists. If Congress can tax the people for the protection of any number of individ uals, or for distribution, then it may make a specific appropriation for the protection of a single individual. To test this mode of construction, let an individual come up bere and say to Congress that he has invested the whole of his capital in domestic manufactures; that owing to the great competition, both in this country and in Europe, he shall be ruined unless Congress will make him a specific appropriation, to aid him in contending with this competition. Is there a gentleman upon this floor who would dare to record his name in favor of such an appropriation? Not one. No, not one. How then, I ask, can the members of this House consent to prolong this onerous system of indirect taxation upon the people, to raise money which is not wanted, which is entireSir, the cupidity of the salt manufacturer of Newly useless, or worse than useless? One would be as much York, the owner of coal mines in Pennsylvania, the cotton growers of the South and the West, the cultivator of hemp in Kentucky, and the sugar manufacturer of Louisiana, have all been entreated to come up to the rescue of the woollen manufacturer of New England. I would also come to their rescue, if I could do it upon just and constitutional principles; but just and equitable principles, as well as the provisions of the constitution, forbid it. Before this can be done, the constitution must be modified, so as to give authority to Congress to distribute the surplus revenue; and the order of nature must be entirely changed, so that that which is now unjust shall become just. For this reason, I think there will be no response from either of the States which have been mentioned. Although, by a reduction of the tariff, the salt and the sugar manufacturer, as well as the cotton and the hemp grower, and the owner of the coal mines, as above mentioned, may have the price of those articles thereby reduced, yet a moment's reflection will teach them that, for all these reductions, they will be doubly compensated by a reduction in their own family expenditures. But, sir, the people of those States, as well as their representatives upon this floor, are, I trust, too firmly attached to the principles of justice and the constitution to be swerved from the path of duty from any sinister motives. They will ask for what purpose duties upon the importation of foreign goods were imposed. And let me put this question to the friends of the administration-those who have been educated in the school of Jeffersonian democracy-for what purpose do you lay duties upon foreign importations? Your answer will be, "to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and welfare of the United States." The above paragraph embraces all the power which Congress possesses upon this subject. May lay taxes to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the country. Not to distribute among the States, nor to protect this, that, or the other, particular branch of industry, in which any portion of our people may be engaged. Notwithstanding, however, the dominant political party of the United States believe that the powers of Congress are thus limited, yet there now is, and there always has been, ever since the adoption of the constitution, a large and powerful political party which pretend that Congress has power to distribute the people's money at will, and also to protect any branch of industry that it chooses to protect, and in any way and manner it chooses to do it. Supposing such a doctrine had been avowed a violation of the constitution and the principles of justice as the other. I therefore entreat every member of this House who professes to be a literal constitutionalist, all who profess to belong to the democracy of the country, who have any regard for individual rights, to act in concert upon this great and important measure, and forthwith remove the evil which is preying upon the vitals of the people, and sapping the foundations of all our invaluable institutions. Yes, sir, I appeal to all the friends of equal rights and privileges to come forward in support of sound constitutional principles, and the cause of justice and humanity; to come forward with a determination that this session of Congress shall not close without a modification of the tariff. Mr. GALBRAITH said that as he was anxious to have an opportunity of bestowing on the bill and report a deeper consideration than he had yet been able to give to them, and as he had no doubt that there were others similarly situated, he moved to postpone the further consideration of the subject until Tuesday next, and that the bill, report, and tabular statements, be printed.` Mr. MUHLENBERG said he did not propose at this time to enter into the merits of the bill; but as it appeared to him that the discussion, if allowed to continue, would consume the whole balance of the session, without eliciting a final decision, he moved that the bill, report, and documents, be laid on the table, and that they be printed. Mr. CALHOON, of Kentucky, moved a division of the question-first, on laying the bill, &c. on the table, and then on printing. Mr. PATTON called for the yeas and nays on the motion of Mr. MUHLENBERG; which were ordered. Mr. CAMBRELENG was understood to ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. MUHLENBERG] to withdraw his motion. Mr. A. MANN said, that as this was a very important question [Cries of "order!" "order!"] Mr. M. said he merely wished to make a motion, and when gentlemen had done calling him to order he would do so. [Cries of "order!" "order!"] Mr. M. said he wished to move a call of the House. Mr. OWENS called for the yeas and nays on that motion; which were ordered, and were: Yeas 105, nays 91. So a call of the House was ordered. The Clerk proceeded to call the roll, but had not made much progress when, on motion of Mr. LANE, all further proceedings in the call were suspended. The question then recurred on the motion to lay the bill and report on the table, and to print the same. After some desultory conversation as to whether the motion to lay on the table and print was in order, which point, however, was not pressed Mrr VANDERPOEL moved that the House adjourn, and called for the yeas and nays; but subsequently withdrew the motion. The question then recurring on the motion to lay on the table, Mr. CAMBRELENG hoped that, before the question was taken, the bill would be read by its title. Mr. C. was called to order. Mr. McKEON inquired whether, before he gave his vote, he might not ask if he was not about to vote for a bill to reduce the revenue of the United States to the wants of the Government. The CHAIR was understood to say that the gentleman from New York could not do so as matter of right. Mr. WISE said he was not present when the bill was read, and he wished to know what the bill was on which he was about to vote. The SPEAKER said the title of the bill was, "A bill to reduce the revenue of the United States to the wants of the Government." Mr. WISE wished to see whether the contents of this bill corresponded with its title. Mr. MANN objected; but the bill was again read. And the question on the motion to lay the bill and report on the table was then taken, and decided in the negative, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Adams, C. Allan, H. Allen, Anthony, Ashley, Bailey, Beaumont, Bell, Black, Bond, Borden, Briggs, Buchanan, J. Calhoon, W. B. Calhoun, G. Chambers, J. Chambers, Chetwood, Childs, Clark, Crane, Cushing, Darlington, Denny, Evans, Everett, Fowler, French, Galbraith, R. Garland, Granger, Grennell, H. Hall, Hard, Harlan, Harper, S. S. Harrison, Hazeltine, Henderson, Hiester, Hoar, Howell, Hubley, Hunt, Ingersoll, Ingham, Janes, Jenifer, R. M. Johnson, Henry Johnson, Kilgore, Lansing, Laporte, Lawrence, T. Lee, Lincoln, J. Mann, Samson Mason, Maury, McKennan, Mercer, Miller, Milligan, Morris, Muhlenberg, Parker, D. J. Pearce, J. A. Pearce, Pearson, Pettigrew, Phelps, Phillips, Pickens, Potts, Reed, Russell, Schenck, W. B. Shepard, Slade, Spangler, Sprague, Steele, Storer, Sutherland, Toucey, Turner, Vinton, Wagener, Wardwell, Washington, E. Whittlesey, T. T. Whittlesey, Young--93. NAYS--Messrs. Ash, Barton, Bean, Boon, Bouldin, Bovee, Boyd, Brown, Burns, Bynum, Cambreleng, Campbell, Carr, Carter, Casey, Chaney, Chapman, Chapin, N. H. Claiborne, J. F. H. Claiborne, Cleveland, Coles, Connor, Craig, Cramer, Cushman, Davis, Dawson, Deberry, Doubleday, Dromgoole, Dunlap, Efner, Elmore, Fairfield, Forester, Fry, Fuller, J. Garland, Gholson, Gillet, Glascock, Graham, Grantland, Grayson, Griffin, Haley, J. Hall, Hamer, Hannegan, A. G. Harrison, Hawkins, Haynes, Holsey, Holt, Hopkins, Howard, Huntington, Huntsman, Jarvis, C. Johnson, J. W. Jones, B. Jones, Klingensmith, Lane, Lawler, J. Lee, L. Lea, Leonard, Lewis, Logan, Love, Loyall, Lyon, A. Mann, Martin, W. Mason, M. Mason, McComas, McKay, McKeon, McKim, McLene, Montgomery, Moore, Morgan, Owens, Page, Parks, Patterson, Patton, F. Pierce, Peyton, Pinckney, Rencher, John Reynolds, Joseph Reynolds, Richardson, Robertson, Rogers, A. H. Shepperd, Shields, Shinn, Smith, Stande fer, Taliaferro, Thomas, John Thomson, Waddy Thompson, Turrill, Vanderpoel, Ward, Webster, Weeks, L. Williams, Wise, Yell--117. So the House determined that the bill should not be laid on the table. [JAN. 13, 1837. Mr. HOLSEY said, that as his section of the country was interested in this subject, and as he wished to submit a few remarks to the House, he would now, the hour being late, move that the House adjourn. Mr. H. withdrew his motion, on the suggestion of Mr. CAMBRELENG and moved that the bill, report, and documents, be printed; which motion prevailed. After transacting some other business, The House adjourned. FRIDAY, JANUARY 13. SURPLUS REVENUE. Mr. E. WHITTLESEY asked the indulgence of the House to postpone the further consideration of the bill to reduce the revenue of the United States to the wants of the Government, in order that reports of committees might be received. If this motion should prevail, Mr. W. said it was his design, after the committees had made their reports, to ask the House to take up and dispose of such private bills as could be disposed of in the course of the day, and as would elicit no debate. Mr. JARVIS inquired how it was to be ascertained what bills would elicit debate, and what not. Mr. WHITTLESEY said, when it was found that a bill was about to excite debate, a motion might be made for its postponement. Mr. BELL said he did not wish to throw any obstacle in the way of the transaction of the business of the House, but he thought that the only way by which the general subjects before the House could be reached was by adhering to the ordinary course of proceeding. If the bill and report on the tariff stood in the way, let them be postponed; but let there be no partial action. He had no objection, if the friends of the bill desired it, to move that the further consideration of the bill be postponed until Wednesday or Thursday next, and that the bill, &c. be printed. The SPEAKER said that there was already a motion pending for postponement until Tuesday next, submitted by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. GALBRAITH.] This was the first question now pending on the bill, and the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. HOLSET] would be entitled to the floor. Mr. HOLSEY said he had no objection to a postpone ment. Mr. CAMBRELENG was understood to say that he was very anxious to take up some of the appropriation bills in the early part of the week. It was not his intention, nor the intention of the Committee of Ways and Means, to arrest discussion on the tariff bill. He would suggest to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. BELL] to move the further postponement of its consideration until Thursday next, and to make it the special order of the day. Mr. LAWRENCE said that he had proposed to withdraw his motion for indefinite postponement, and to move that the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. The SPEAKER said that that motion had heretofore been submitted, and was now pending. Mr. LAWRENCE then withdrew his motion for indefinite postponement. The SPEAKER said that the two pending motions would then be, a motion to postpone to Tuesday next, and a motion to commit. If a motion was made to postpone to a later day, that would take precedence. If the motion to postpone was withdrawn, the question would then recur on the motion to commit. Mr. BELL then withdrew his motion to postpone to a day certain. The SPEAKER said that the question would then recur on the motion to postpone until Tuesday next. |