Slike strani
PDF
ePub

JAN. 16, 1837.]

So the resolution was agreed to.

Expunging Resolution.

Mr. BENTON, observing that nothing now remained but for the Secretary to carry into effect the order of the Senate, moved that that be forthwith done.

The Secretary thereupon produced the record of the Senate, and, opening it at the page which contained the resolution to be expunged, did, in the presence of such of the members of the Senate as remained, (many having retired,) proceed to draw black lines entirely round the resolution, and to endorse across the lines the words "Expunged by order of the Senate, this 16th day of January, 1837."

No sooner had this been done, than hisses, loud and repeated, were heard from various parts of the gallery. The CHAIR, (Mr. KING, of Alabama.) Clear the galleries.

[SENATE.

hended then stood, proposed that the individual have an opportunity to purge himself by oath from the contempt. The Senate were not to presume him guilty; and if he was willing to swear that he intended no contempt, he ought to have an opportunity to do so.

Mr. MORRIS demanded the yeas and nays on the motion for his discharge; and they were ordered accordingly.

Mr. BENTON observed that if the individual was ready to go to the Clerk's table, and there, by oath, to purge himself of the contempt, he had no objection. Let him do so.

Mr. ROBINSON now stated, on behalf of the person apprehended, that he was willing and ready to answer interrogatories.

Mr. BENTON thereupon withdrew his motion for his discharge.

The CHAIR reminded him that he could not do this, inasmuch as the yeas and nays upon it had been or

Mr. BENTON. I hope the galleries will not be cleared, as many innocent persons will be excluded, who have been guilty of no violation of order. Let the ruffians who have made the disturbance alone be appre-dered. hended. I hope the Sergeant-at-arms will be directed to enter the gallery, and seize the ruffians, ascertaining who | they are in the best way he can. Let him apprehend them, and bring them to the bar of the Senate. Let him seize the bank ruffians. I hope that they will not now be suffered to insult the Senate, as they did when it was under the power of the Bank of the United States, when ruffians, with arms upon them, insulted us with impunity. Let them be taken and brought to the bar of the Senate. Here is one just above me, that may easily be identified--the bank ruffians!

Mr. MORRIS was strongly opposed to having the individual suddenly, without warning, and without oppor tunity to consult counsel, brought forward to take his oath, and undergo interrogatories. It would be better to give him until to-morrow, that he might have some leisure for reflection. He had been brought up here . before the Senate of the United States, and before the people of the United States, and to require him thus suddenly to be put upon oath in his defence was wrong. He concluded by moving an adjournment.

The yeas and nays were demanded and ordered on the motion to adjourn.

The order to clear the galleries was revoked, and the Sergeant-at-arms directed to proceed into the galleries Mr. STRANGE thought that if the individual was wiland apprehend the persons who had created the disorder.ling now to be sworn, and to undergo interrogatories, In a very few minutes the Sergeant-at-arms returned, and reported to the Chair that he had apprehended an individual, and had him in custody.

Mr. BENTON moved that he be brought to the bar of the Senate.

Mr. MORRIS opposed the motion, and demanded the yeas and nays; which being ordered and taken, stood: Yeas 17, nays 8. So the motion was carried.

It was suggested by Mr. MOORE that there was not a quorum present, and the Chair at first so decided. But, on being reminded that one of the Senators from Louisiana had resigned, 25 was a majority of the 49 remaining, he declared that a quorum was present.

Mr. MOORE now moved an adjournment; but the motion was lost.

The Sergeant-at-arms now produced and presented an individual at the bar of the Senate.

[He was a tall, well-dressed man, wrapped in a black overcoat.]

he was certainly the best judge of his own rights. He best knew what he could undergo, and there was no need that Senators should become his advocates.

Mr. BENTON said that if the man wished to purge himself on oath, now, here, in presence of the Senate, it was very well. Let him do so. But if he wanted to go away and consult a lawyer, if he must ask a lawyer to-morrow before he could tell whether he meant to insult the Senate to-night, he was opposed to it. If he was ready to swear, let him do it, but no consulting with lawyers.

The CHAIR stated to Mr. MORRIS that the individual in custody was not brought up without a charge, as that Senator seemed to intimate. He was charged with disorderly conduct in the presence of the Senate, and the law gave the Senate, as it gave a court of justice, power to protect itself in all such cases, by a summary proceedin, and on the evidence of its own senses.

Mr. ROBINSON again said that the individual in custody wished for an opportunity of purging himself from the contempt.

Mr. BENTON said that, as the individual had been taken from among the respectable audience in the gallery, and had been presented in this public manner, with Some confusion prevailed. But the motion for his all eyes fixed upon him, he had perhaps been sufficient-discharge being pressed, the question was put, and dely punished in his feelings. Mr. B. was not disposed to push the proceedings any further, and therefore moved that he be discharged from custody.

cided as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Benton, Brown, Buchanan, Dana, Ewing of Illinois, Fulton, Grundy, Hendricks, Hubbard, King of Alabama, Linn, Nicholas, Niles, Page, Rives, Robinson, Ruggles, Sevier, Tallmadge, Tipton, Walker, White, Wright-23.

NAY-Mr. Wall-1.

The individual was accordingly discharged from custody.

Mr. MORRIS considered the whole proceeding as very extraordinary. If the individual had been worthy of arrest, he ought to have an opportunity of defence. A citizen had been brought to the bar of the Senate, and not informed for what reason, nor of what offence he stood charged; and now it was moved that, without a hearing, he be discharged from custody. Call you this (said Mr. M.) the justice of the Senate of the United States? Is it in this manner that citizens are to be treated? It appears to me a most extraordinary proceeding.my own defence?" Mr. SEVIER moved an adjournment; but the motion did not prevail.

Mr. ROBINSON, near whose seat the person appre

The individual referred to thereupon advanced, and, addressing the Chair, said:

"Mr. President, am I not to be permitted to speak in

The CHAIR, to the Sergeant-at-arms: "Take him

out!"

The Senate then adjourned.

SENATE.]

Abolition in the District of Columbia.

[JAN. 17, 1837.

rial by having an additional number of it printed at the expense of the United States, because it contained, as he conceived, a principle altogether subversive of the rights of the whole community.

TUESDAY, JANUARY 17. ABOLITION IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Mr. KENT, having presented a memorial from the grand jury of Washington county, protesting against the interference of citizens from distant States in respected difference between receiving petitions, the effect of to the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, moved that it be laid on the table and printed.

Mr. MORRIS rose and said that he had hundreds of petitions to present for the abolition of slavery; and, therefore, he would ask for the yeas and nays on the question of printing the memorial which had just been presented. Not ordered.

Mr. CALHOUN observed that there was a very mark.

which was to deprive men of what belonged to them, and doing so for the purpose of defending their rights and their property. Slaves were as much the property of the latter, as stocks, houses, or lands, were of those who would deprive them of their rights and property. These petitioners prayed that all good citizens would cease to project acts of robbery upon them. The Sen

Mr. HUBBARD suggested to the Senator from Mary-ator from New Jersey put both classes of petitioners land, [Mr. KENT,] whether it would not be as well to print an extra number of copies of this important document, for the purpose of distribution, as it might be productive of good.

Mr. CALHOUN said that he would make that motion. It was a most important paper, and there was one part of it at which he most heartily rejoiced. It took the true position-that abolition petitions should not be received. There was a dangerous and mischievious spirit at work in various parts of the country, connected with this question. It was only at the last session that he had contended for what the memorialists suggest to Congress. He had urged that very point, and he found himself in a very considerable minority. He hoped that such would not be the case now he was supporting this motion. He would second the motion of the Senator from Ohio, trusting that he would renew it, and be indulged with the yeas and nays.

Mr. HUBBARD remarked that he had suggested to the Senator the printing of an extra number, not on account of his own feelings particularly, but because he believed the proceedings of individuals in different parts of the country on this subject were predicated upon the supposed fact that the people living in the District of Columbia were in favor of the abolition of slavery from among them.

upon the same footing. Those (concluded Mr. C.) who claim to disturb a man of his property shall not be heard. If one petition is to be rejected, the other is to be rejected. The memorialists have a right to be heard, and they have a right to insist that those who come here to disturb their property shall not be heard.

Mr. NILES said that the question was not whether petitioners in general stood upon a somewhat different ground from the present residents in the District of Columbia, but whether the subject-matter was proper for Congress to entertain, even so far as to print a petition which might operate on public sentiment. For his own part, he wished that Congress would act decidedly on this agitating topic. He had no doubt that these petitioners had a deep interest in what they requested. But, nevertheless, the question was the same as respected both classes of petitioners, and was one which Congress could not go into at all. When the subject was not at present discussed by the public, and when it was desirable that tranquillity should be preserved, why, he asked, should the Senate of the United States agitate the question now? He recollected perfectly well, that at the last session the gentleman from South Carolina went so far as to protest against the reception of a single petition, though, to be sure, coming from those not having the same interest as the gentlemen whose memorial was now before the Senate, but still such an interest as gave them a right to come here. The rule in regard to the right of petition must apply equally and fairly, and give no preference to one portion of the community over another. He was, then, he must say, altogether opposed to printing the memorial, and should vote against the adoption of that course. The printing of an extra number of copies would produce no good effect, but, on the contrary, would cause the subject to be again agitated in various parts of the Union. His honorable friend [Mr. HUBBARD] seemed to think that by the distribution of the memorial a good effect might be produced on the public mind. He could not agree with him on that point, and must repeat that the subject was one which Congress ought not to entertain, inasmuch as it was not proper that they should act on one side of the question and not on the other.

Mr. WALL said that he was in favor of printing the usual number. He confessed that it did appear to him a most singular thing, that gentlemen who claimed the right to petition should protest against others having the right to do the same thing. And, although the gentleman from South Carolina had expressed his congratulation at the sentiments avowed by the memorialists, they seemed to him (Mr. W.) totally at war with the fundamental principles of our constitution. He was sorry to see any body of men-respectable as he had no doubt the petitioners were-act upon the high ground that they had a right to petition, and that others, taking a different view of the question, were not entitled to have their petitions received by Congress. He was perfectly willing that they should enjoy their own rights; for he acknowledged, in the utmost extent, the right of petition, as one of the most sacred rights of the people of this country. It was a right which Congress did not Mr. BROWN said he intended to vote against the exgive. It was a right which they could not take away. tra number. If he were to vote to print an extraordiAnd he was not disposed, for one, to countenance the nary number of the memorial sent here by the grand idea that the Senate could take away the right of peti- jury, it would imply that there was some danger of Contion from any part of this great community, or favor the gress being about to legislate on the subject. He reclaims made by one portion of the public, and at the peated, that should an extra number be ordered, the same time deny the right of the other to present their idea would be spread abroad, and reasons given to suspetitions. He declared that he would give no counte- pect, that Congress intended to act in the matter. Now, nance whatever to the sentiments of the memorialists, so as he did not believe that there was the slightest ground far as to vote for publishing an additional number of for any such apprehension, as no such action was entercopies. He was willing to vote for the printing of the tained by either branch of the National Legislature, he memorial, because it was couched in respectful language. was utterly averse to do any act which had a tendency And for the reason that gentlemen were interested in the to create that idea. But, besides that, it did appear to subject, he was for giving every opportunity for a fair, him somewhat novel to ask for the printing of an excalm, and dispassionate investigation into what they ask-traordinary number of a document coming from private But he would not, he repeated, honor the memo

ed.

individuals.

JAN. 17, 1837.]

Abolition in the District of Columbia.

Undoubtedly the proper course of gentlemen was, not to do any act here which would promote agitation. Now, he contended that the printing of the document in question, and the dissemination of it throughout the country, did, in some degree, tend to increase the agitation in reference to this question.

Why, then, he would ask, should the Senate of the United States lend its sanction to a course which would induce the country to believe that it purposed acting on the subject of slavery? There being no ground to apprehend any such movement on the part of Congress, he would do nothing to lend his sanction to the supposition that Congress intended to interfere with the matter.

Mr. CALHOUN thought it most extraordinary that Senators should put on a level petitioners who had noth ing to lose, with the petitioners whose memorial had just been read. Did the Senator from North Carolina mean to say that when men all over the country were agitating the question of the abolition of slavery, that these petitioners, and others situated like them, who had a great interest in this matter, on account of their property, were to close their mouths? Had they not a right to express their assent or dissent? And had not one side a right to express their opinion with regard to the other? Was this the language of the Senator? Was the Senate to understand the honorable Senator from Connecticut that slaveholders had no more claim to be heard than those who were disturbing their interests? This was indeed most extraordinary. He looked upon this as a very calm remonstrance on the part of this respectable grand jury; and he was very happy that the Senator from New Hampshire had thought it proper that the memorial should be distributed among the people; for it would show that what was about to be done was an act of robbery.

Mr. KING, of Alabama, observed that he should vote for the printing of the memorial with great pleasure, but he would not do so if aware that it came from a set of fanatics who were disturbing the quiet of the country, and endeavoring to bring about a dissension. Congress were the sole legislators of the District, as he had been reminded, and they were bound to receive the memorials with proper attention and respect. He hoped that a proper spirit would be manifested with respect to other memorials, as the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. MORRIS] had said he had some hundreds. He maintained that Congress were bound to protect the people of the District of Columbia in their rights. He did not know, however, that the Senate were bound to order an extra number of copies of the memorial to be printed.

Mr. MORRIS, after stating what was the language of the memorialists, remarked that he entirely approved of the sentiments expressed by the Senator from New Jersey, for they were precisely his own. The question | then was, "shall this paper be printed?" He was disposed to vote for the printing of it, because he believed it of the highest importance, and one that should be giv. en to the community; for it was desirable that they should be in possession of every thing that was calculated to throw light on the subject. If the memorialists were correct in principle, and if, by their arguments, they should be able to convince the country that the question of slavery ought not to be touched by Congress, a desirable object might be attained; or if, on the other hand, their reasons should be considered unsound, and not founded in justice and truth, they would at least have been presented to the people of the United States, as those of a respectable body of men, speaking accord. to the dictates of their consciences. He was ready and willing to vote for printing the usual number of copies. He wished that this paper was in the hands of every citizen of the United States; and if his vote and voice could effect that object, he would do it instantly. Why?

[SENATE

It was

That each might read and judge for himself. not now necessary to presume upon what would be the action of Congress on the subject, when other petitions should hereafter be presented. Whether they would be ordered to be printed, or received, he would not pretend to anticipate. But with respect to this memorial, it did appear to him that it was desirable it should be printed; even out of courtesy to the mover, if for no other reason, who was the chairman of the Committee on the District of Columbia, and the representative of an adjoining State, which felt great interest in the subject.

Mr. BROWN understood the honorable Senator from South Carolina to ask the question, whether he (Mr. B.) desired to array the interests of one great section of the country against the other?

Mr. CALHOUN explained, that he had asked the Senator from North Carolina whether he would put in the same scale those petitioners whose rights were not affected, with those whose rights were disturbed and threatened with annihilation?

Mr. BROWN replied, certainly not. Those whose property was involved bad every right to petition and protest in every way. He had made no objection to the printing of the usual number of copies of the memorial. But what rights were compromised, what rights were violated, by not printing an extraordinary number of the document proposed to be printed? This was indeed a novel doctrine, and a mode of violating rights he did not understand. He had resisted at the last session the printing of petitions on this subject, in whatever shape they might be presented. But in this case, as the rights of the petitioners were involved, he would consent to depart from the rule then acted on by him. He would take this occasion to say that he believed now, as he had ever believed, that the discussion of this question here, so far from being beneficial to those whose rights were involved, was imminently detrimental to them.

The Senate were told that the subject was agitating in different parts of the country at this time. He thought that it was but the other day that the Legislature of New York, when some petitions were presented on a subject having relation to this question, met them with the most decided rebuke. In conclusion, he would again assert that there was no agitation in the halls of Congress on the subject, and he could not see the slightest necessity for taking the course proposed.

Mr. CALHOUN remarked that it was of very great importance that the petitioners should be protected in their rights; should be heard here. He did not mean to agitate (as the gentleman from North Carolina seemed to suppose he did) the question of abolition. But what he intended to say was, that those whose interests were deeply affected by the agitation of this question had a right to demand to be heard, at least as much so as those who sent their petitions here, and who had nothing to lose. He, (Mr. C.,) in speaking of the respectable gentlemen who composed the grand jury, had said nothing more concerning them than was due to them and their rights.

Mr. BROWN said he had made no reference to the grand jury; but merely alluded to those who were discussing the subject here.

Mr. CALHOUN repelled the insinuation thrown out by the Senators from New Jersey and North Carolina, in regard to his creating an excitement on the subject. He denied that be had said any thing to produce excitement. He did not wish to see any agitation, nor would he be the means of causing it. But with respect to the people of the District of Columbia, when their rights were affected, they were compelled to look to Congress for protection. And when they deemed it proper to send a petition here, he would say, that if no one else present

[blocks in formation]

chose to hear it, he would. As to the people of the States, they could be heard by their own Legislatures; and if they were not able to protect themselves, they would not receive protection from any quarter.

Mr. KENT made a few remarks, bearing testimony to the respectful language of the memorialists.

Mr. LINN said he would be pleased to know whether any practical benefits were likely to grow out of circulating, by order of the Senate, copies of the document now proposed to be printed. What, he asked, was the proper remedy for the evil of which the people of the District of Columbia complained, and concerning which they had directed the attention of Congress? Was their property in danger? Were the laws insufficient to protect their slaves? If so, let us then march directly up to the subject, and enact such as will afford ample security. For measures of a practical nature, he would give his vote with great pleasure. He said he was well aware that questions of this kind came up here, and incidentally impressed persons at a distance with the idea that Congress wished to deprive them of the right to be heard here, and of the right to petition. Nothing, in his opinion, was more erroneous. Refuse to receive and hear an abolition petition, and you render the abolitionists a thou sand times more active and industrious in propagating their doctrines, and more successful in enlisting the sympathies in their favor of those who believed in the inherent right of the people to assemble and petition for a redress of grievances. He never had voted, nor never would vote, for the printing and disseminating an abolition memorial; so likewise he would not lend his aid for the printing of this document in favor of slavery.

On the great question of slavery, the constitution and Jaws would find ample support in the good sense of the great body of the American people. He gave it as his opinion, that to insure tranquillity was to let this exciting topic alone.

Mr. WALL would say a few words, by way of explanation. He was for treating all petitioners with proper respect, and regarding their petitions in accordance with the motives and intentions which seemed to have originated them. But he did not rate all petitioners on the same footing with these, as the Senator from South Carolina seemed to suppose. I conceive (said Mr. W.) we stand here in relation to the people of the United States as having duties on our part to perform, and they having rights which they may insist upon. And one of their rights, unquestionably, is the right to petition; and when their petition is received, our duty commences. We are to exercise our judgment, to examine and deliberate as to the manner in which we shall dispose of that petition. Now, whenever those persons who are called abolitionists seek to interfere with the subject, I would receive their petition; and then their rights end, and my duties begin. I would examine that petition, and if, in my judgment, in the exercise of my legislative duty, it became necessary that I should not further act on that petition, and that it should be laid on the table, I would have no hesitation in doing so. And I maintain that, in doing so, they would have no right to complain. When I stated that I was in favor of printing this petition, I drew the broad line of distinction between what I would concede to these who consider their rights are attacked, and those who conceive they are acting under the impulse of high and general feelings of philanthropy. I would accord to both something, on account of the motives actuating them. I would give them equal credit for good and honest purposes. But when I am asked to vote for printing an extra number of the petition, although connected, as it is, with men of respectability, I am called to look at my duty, and at the consequences that will result from printing these copies. Whether or not it is to provoke controversy, to produce agitation,

[JAN. 18, 1837.

and put in danger the property they would take care of, I believe it is not to the interest of the petitioners that there should be any more copies printed than the usual number.

I am perfectly willing that the ordinary number should be ordered; and I hope that the gentleman will not insist on his motion. I trust that no improper motives will be attributed to these petitioners, nor to any other persons who may petition Congress. But, in my humble judgment, the printing of an extra number can produce no salutary effect to the petitioners themselves, and no good to the community. It will not promote the peace and happiness of the Union. It will produce controversy and disputation on this floor and in the other House. And if we are to give circulation to sentiments expressed by these petitioners, can we, with a proper sense of justice, withhold from those who choose to utter their sentiments on the other side of the question the same privilege? I would, then, ask gentlemen to look at the consequences which may result from being gratified in the application to print an extra number of copies. It is my deliberate opinion they ought not to be printed.

Mr. MORRIS renewed his motion for the yeas and nays; which were ordered.

And the question was then taken on printing the usual number of copies: Yeas 34, nays 5.

PUBLIC LANDS.

The Senate then proceeded to the order of the day; which was the consideration of Mr. WALKER's land bill. Mr. MORRIS made an effort to have the consideration of the bill postponed, but without success. He then went at length into a statement of his objection to the bill as reported by the Committee on Public Lands, and his reasons for preferring it in the form in which he had himself introduced it into the Senate. He compared the two, section by section; and having concluded,

Mr. EWING moved the postponement of the further consideration of the bill to Friday next.

Mr. WALKER opposed this, lest the passage of the bill might be endangered, and demanded the yeas and nays; which being taken, were: Yeas 14, nays 18.

So the Senate refused to postpone the bill.

Mr. MORRIS then offered an amendment, embracing the principle of graduation in the price of land in proportion to the time it had been offered for sale; which, after some brief discussion, was agreed to: Yeas 19, nays 18.

Mr. MORRIS proposed a further amendment, on which much desultory debate took place, and several modifica. tions were suggested, and in part agreed to; but before any thing was decided respecting them,

The Senate, on motion of Mr. BUCHANAN, went into executive business,

And afterwards adjourned.

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 18.

Mr. CUTHBERT, of Georgia, appeared and took his

scat.

PUBLIC LANDS.

The bill to limit the sales of the public lands except to actual settlers, and in limited quantities, came up as the special order.

Mr. WALKER proposed, as no gentleman seemed ready to go on with the discussion, to postpone the further consideration of the bill until to-morrow.

Mr. CLAY expressed a wish for a postponement to later period. He expressed his opposition to the bill throughout, and said that he would be able to demonstrate conclusively, that instead of preventing speculations in the public lands, and limiting the sales, it would

[blocks in formation]

increase the sales to a great degree, and operate as an encouragement to speculation.

Mr. EWING, of Ohio, after a few remarks, moved to postpone the bill until Monday.

Mr. WALKER objected to the postponement to so late a day as Monday, on the ground that, this being a short session, it would endanger the passage of the bill. He wished the bill to be taken up to-morrow, and for the discussion to go on while gentlemen were preparing their amendments. He knew that it could not be passed without considerable discussion; and, therefore, the sooner that discussion commenced, the better the chance the bill would have of being brought to a final decision before the close of the session. If a postponement should be ordered, he hoped that it would not be to a later day than Friday next.

Mr. KING, of Alabama, did not wish to prevent any gentleman from having a fair opportunity of expressing his opinions on the subject, and was willing to allow a reasonable time to make the bill as perfect in its details as possible. With regard to what had fallen from the Senator from Kentucky, [Mr. CLAY,] he presumed that it was not his intention to throw any unnecessary impediment in the way of passing this bill. It was not to its details, but to the great principle of it, that the Senator objected; and he would take the occasion to say that it would puzzle that gentleman's ingenuity to show (as he had said he could do) that there were provisions in the bill that would lead to more speculation than was practised under the present system of conducting land sales. No matter what measure should be devised, it was more than any man could do to prevent speculation altogether. But the friends of the bill believed that much could be done towards limiting its extent, and therefore were anxious to give their plan a fair trial.

Now, as to disposing of the bill, he would prefer that the Senate should go on with it to-morrow, and gentlemen could, in the mean time, prepare such amendments as they might wish to offer. He would now repeat, what he had said when he arose, that he was willing to give a reasonable time for the discussion; but beyond the time he had mentioned he was not disposed to go. He hoped the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. WALKER] would consider it his duty to the Senate and to the country to take up the bill as early as possible, and then gentlemen would have an opportunity of discussing the subject.

The question was then taken, and the further consideration of the bill was postponed till Friday next.

FRENCH AND NEAPOLITAN INDEMNITIES. Mr. WRIGHT, chairman of the Committee on Finance, moved that the Senate proceed to consider the bill to anticipate the payment of the indemnities stipulated in the treaties with France and the Two Sicilies. After some opposition, the motion was agreed to, and the bill taken up.

Mr. WRIGHT proceeded to explain the grounds of the bill. Under our treaty with France, there remained due to this Government two of the instalments of the indemnities stipulated by that treaty to be paid to our citizens for spoliations on their commerce during the reign of Napoleon. One of these would fall due on the 21 of February, 1837, and would be realized in the May following. A second would fall due on the 2d of Februa ry, 1838, and would be realized in May of that year. Assuming the whole indemnity at five millions, the amount of these two instalments would be one million and two thirds. The indemnity stipulated in our treaty with the Two Sicilies was payable in nine instalments; three of which have been already paid, and six remain still due. They were payable annually on the 8th of June, and would, in regular course, be realized by this

VOL. XIII.-33

[SENATE.

Government some months after. The amount of these six instalments was $1,123,000. All these indemnities, both the French and the Neapolitan, stood at four per cent. The result, therefore, of the present bill would be the payment to our own citizens of about $2,800,000, and placing that sum at an interest of four per cent. un. til, by the gradual payment of the instalments, the whole should return into the Treasury. One half of that paid under the French treaty would be reimbursed in May next; and one sixth of that payable under the Neapolitan treaty would come back into the Treasury in the fall of the present year. The provisions of the bill were simple, and needed, as he presumed, no farther explanation.

Mr. CLAY. I am opposed to this bill, and I should be glad if I could engage the attention of the Senate to the reasons on which that opposition is founded. I am against the bill partly on financial and partly on constitutional grounds. As a measure of finance, what is it? It proposes to take the public money, and lend it to the claimants under the French and Neapolitan treaties at an interest of four per cent., and to guaranty the ultimate payment of the whole amount stipulated by both treaties. Now, as a question of finance, is the Government of the United States justifiable in loaning out the public money to individuals at four per cent. at a moment when the Legislatures of several of the States have augmented the rate of interest to six and seven per cent., and the rate of money in the market is, in fact, not less than from ten to twenty per cent.? Such an arrangement seems to me extremely injudicious. When we look at the state of the Treasury, I ask, can we do it? The Secretary of the Treasury says that there will be a deficit on the 1st of next January, so great as to render it necessary to recall a part of the sums deposited with the respective States under the act of the last session. Suppose that necessity should arise, and, in consequence of the expenditures of the Government, and of this advance of nearly two millions of dollars, it should become indispensable to recall a part of the money deposited with the States, in what condition should we find ourselves? These States are now using the money at an advantage of from six to ten per cent., and you will recall it out of their hands, to lend it to private citizens at an interest of four per cent. Would this be wise?

But I have other and higher objections to this measure. What is it, in point of fact? Is it not a loan by the Government of the United States to certain claimants, or their assigns, of the amount of two instalments under the treaty with France, and of six instalments under the treaty with the Neapolitan Government? Is not that the substance of the bill? Now, I ask, have we a right to make such a loan? If we have, I should like to see that part of the constitution under which the right is claimed. I understand that the action of this Government in regard to claims of her citizens on a foreign Government is a mere agency. We get for A, B, and C, the amount of their individual claims on a foreign Government, so far as we can do it consistently with the general interest of the whole country, first to be secured in our negotiations with that Government. But here, in order to secure these private claims, we are to guaranty the fulfilment of treaties by two independent foreign Governments. I say that we have no right to advance the public money on the face of these treaties, more than we have to loan it in any other case. Suppose the Barings or the Rothschilds had created a debt to our citizens to the amount of these two millions, might you advance the money? On what principle are you to guaranty these treaties? What security is there provided in this bill for the repayment of this money by the claimants who receive it, in the event of revolutions subverting the Governments of France or Naples, and thereby causing the treaties

« PrejšnjaNaprej »