Mr. GRISWOLD.--Again, the committee say that four navy yards were
purchased without authority, and the money misapplied which was paid for
them. In my judgment, this is one of the most extraordinary opinions
ever pronounced. The facts which gave rise to the purchase of the navy
yards were as follows: In the year 1799, Congress authorized by law the
building of six 74-gun ships, and one million of dollars was then
appropriated for that object, and for building six sloops-of-war. The
Secretary of the Treasury found that the committee ought to have
understood that ships could not be built either in the air or upon the
water, and as he was directed to build the ships, that he must, of
course, procure land to place them upon, and that the land must be
either purchased or hired. He found that there was not a navy yard
within the United States calculated for building ships-of-the-line, and
that the expense of preparing yards upon private property would be lost
the moment the ship was launched, and of course that this would be bad
economy. Experience had likewise taught him, that the better mode would
be to purchase the ground, as it would then remain at the control of the
Government, so long as it was wanted, and the improvements would be
saved. This course was accordingly pursued, and I believe that few
gentlemen, except the committee, will conclude that it was not the
wisest and best. But whether it was the best course or not, it was
certainly authorized by law, because it can never be seriously doubted,
whether a law which directs a thing to be done, does authorize the
agents to be employed to do every thing which becomes necessary for
accomplishing the object. The laws which have authorized the building of
ships have certainly empowered the public agents to purchase timber,
copper, cordage, and every other necessary material, and yet no law for
those objects has ever named any one of those articles. On the same
principle, the law which directed the building of these particular
ships, necessarily authorized the public agent to procure the ground to
place them upon, although it was not said, whether the ships should be
built upon the water or upon the land.
But there has been one omission in this part of the report, which, on
every principle of fairness ought to be connected with it, and for which
purpose the report ought to be recommitted: the omission of the letter
of Mr. Stoddert, late Secretary of the Navy, explanatory of the purchase
made by him of the navy yards, addressed to the committee, in answer to
an application made by them upon this subject. This letter contains, in
my opinion, a complete justification of that transaction, and was so
viewed by the minority of the committee, who urged that it might, at
least, be included in the report; but, to our astonishment, the minority
refused this justice to the man whom their report had implicated. This
opinion of the majority, in respect to the propriety of including Mr.
Stoddert's letter, I must believe, will remain a solitary one, for I can
scarcely imagine it possible that any other gentleman in this House
would have refused, when they presented a charge against this gentleman
with one hand, to offer with the other his vindication, written at their
own request. If, however, the motion to recommit should prevail, I will
then move an instruction to the committee, which will produce Mr.
Stoddert's letter.
What renders the report of the committee still more extraordinary, both
in respect to erecting the buildings, and also the purchase of navy
yards, is, that another subject, resembling these in principle, was
before the committee, and on which they refused to report. This was the
erecting of the extensive navy stores in this place by the present
Administration.
The present Secretary of the Navy was requested to inform the committee
when those stores were erected, and from what fund the money had been
taken. His answer satisfied the committee that the stores had been
erected by the present Administration, and that the money, if I
recollect correctly, had been taken from an appropriation for the 74's,
navy yards, and docks. The minority of the committee believed, what I
trust will be generally believed by those who examine the question, that
this was (to say no more of it) at least as doubtful an expenditure as
that for the purchase of navy yards, or for erecting the buildings on
the Schuylkill. If an authority to build 74's, to complete navy yards
and docks, gave an authority to erect stores for the accommodation of
the navy, it was thought that an authority to build ships, necessarily
included a power to procure the land to place them upon; and that an
authority to purchase military stores and to manage the affairs of the
army necessarily included a power to furnish, at the public expense,
buildings to cover the stores, and for other necessary military
purposes, at the discretion of the officers intrusted with those
concerns. The minority of the committee, therefore, urged to include
this transaction in the report, together with the letter of the
Secretary of the Navy, but the request was rejected by the majority. We
believed that the cases were precisely similar in principle, and that it
was not conducting with impartiality to include the one without the
other; and we have thought that when it was discovered that the present
Administration was conducting on principles precisely similar to those
of their predecessors, it would greatly tend to satisfy all parties that
the conduct of the Government had been correct. I feel no hesitation in
declaring that, in my judgment, the present Administration were
authorized to erect the navy stores, although I believe that the power
may be better questioned than it could be in the other cases. These navy
stores, I presume, are useful both for receiving the necessary materials
for ship building, and securing the stores of the public ships laid up
in ordinary; and although not expressly authorized by the words of the
law, may very well be considered as a proper appendage to a navy yard,
or as buildings rendered necessary in the finishing of the 74's; and as
to the extent of the buildings, I am content to leave that point to the
Department to which it has been confided. The propriety, however, of
including this statement in the report (I trust) will be apparent to the
House, and it will not in this place be thought correct to confine our
criticisms exclusively to the past Administration. I therefore urge this
as a further reason for recommitting the report.
Mr. NICHOLSON had very little inclination, at this time, to enter into
an explanation of this subject, which had been so misunderstood by the
gentleman just up, on account of indisposition, nor was he very
anxiously opposed to the recommitment, but he could perceive not a
shadow of reason why the report should be recommitted.
The gentleman had grounded his motion upon the opinion, that all the
necessary facts had not been stated. It was, to be sure, a very late
period of the session, and the discussion would therefore consume much
precious time; but notwithstanding that, if it should appear that any
material facts had been suppressed, there would be good ground for
recommitting the report. He should therefore think it necessary to test
the grounds advanced, to prove the necessity of the recommitment.
As to the navy yards, the committee having been appointed "to report
whether moneys drawn from the Treasury have been faithfully applied to
the objects for which they were appropriated, and whether the same have
been regularly accounted for;" and knowing that six navy yards had been
purchased, very naturally inquired under what authority these purchases
had been made, and how they were paid for. They referred to the law
authorizing the building of six seventy-fours and six sloops-of-war.
The committee submitted an inquiry to the former Secretary of the Navy,
(Mr. Stoddert,) directing him to inform the committee as to the
purchase. Mr. Stoddert answered that a law had passed, appropriating one
million of dollars for building the seventy-fours and sloops-of-war, and
that fifty thousand dollars were also appropriated for two dock-yards;
and also that two hundred thousand dollars were appropriated for the
purchase of timber, or land clothed therewith; and that he thought
himself authorized to purchase six navy yards, wherein to build the
seventy-fours. To these several laws the committee referred for the
authority under which the Secretary acted, but they could find no such
authority; they could find no other, than authority to purchase two
dock-yards, wherein to repair the ships. Now, although not stated in the
report, there is very good reason to believe that the fifty thousand
dollars never was laid out upon the two dock-yards, but that this sum
was cast into the surplus fund. Whether Mr. Stoddert's opinion was
correct or not, that it would be more economical to build the
seventy-fours in public yards, than in private yards at rent, they were
not appointed to inquire; it was their business to say whether he was
authorized to act so, let his private opinion be what it might. The
committee were clearly of opinion, that he was not authorized to take
money appropriated for one purpose and make use of it for another.
As to the reason, why the gentleman wishes the report recommitted; to
wit, to insert Mr. Stoddert's answer with the report; it is true a
motion for the insertion was made. But the committee thought that letter
was addressed to them, and not to the House; that it was to inform their
minds, so as to enable them to make the report. They paid due attention
to the reasoning of the letter, but it did not convince them that Mr. S.
acted authoritatively. Mr. Stoddert's reasoning upon the subject could
not form a part of the report; the committee were called upon to form an
opinion, and not to substitute that of any individual. They were to
inquire whether moneys appropriated were used to the purposes for which
they were appropriated. They thought it was not, because it was
appropriated to build ships, and to purchase land with timber on it, or
timber alone. The question then is, whether six navy yards are six
seventy-four gun ships, and whether six sloops-of-war are lands with
timber growing on it or not? If Mr. Stoddert's reasoning had been
adopted by the committee, it would have become their reasoning, and
except it should be theirs, it would have had no business in the report.
If a disposition of vindication could have been admitted, Mr. Stoddert
might have been permitted to have appeared with counsel before the
committee, but facts alone were required, and facts the committee state.
Ships had been built for the public before, but the idea never was
entertained to build docks for them. No measure different from those
taken in the building of the frigates, except by legal authority, ought
to have been taken with the seventy-fours.
The case of the navy yard at this place was brought before the
committee. It was the request of the minority that the case should be
inquired into. The committee sent to request the Secretary of the Navy
to say by what authority the storehouse had been erected here, or from
what fund it was paid. The answer was, that the storehouse had been
erected out of a fund granted in February, eighteen hundred and one, for
completing the seventy-fours, the navy yards, and the docks. The ships
had been ordered to be laid up in ordinary at this place, and the navy
yard purchased. When the present Secretary of the Navy came into office,
he found, that as a navy yard was to be completed here, and as sails,
rigging, and other naval stores, must be kept here; and finding that one
storehouse was already built, and another begun, here, it would be most
prudent to complete that storehouse, as a necessary appendage to a navy
yard where shipping would be sent for repairs. To this none of the
gentlemen objected, but rather approved; and this is surely a purpose to
which the money was appropriated. Whether the other applications are or
not, is for the House to decide. The committee have stated the facts.
The gentleman says the accountant of the War Department was satisfied
with the accounts of General Wilkins. I did not understand the fact
so--vouchers were sent on, but they were not satisfactory.
Mr. BAYARD.--I shall beg the indulgence only of a few words, upon one or
two heads, respecting which, the opinion I entertain is decidedly
opposed to that expressed by a majority of the committee. I cannot well
conceive of a plainer mistake, than what appears in the opinion,
pronounced on the purchase of six navy yards, made by the late Secretary
of the Navy. The committee, I think, ought to be allowed an opportunity
of reviewing that opinion. Four of those six yards are considered as
purchased without authority, and the money paid for them misapplied.
By the act of the Legislature, of February, 1799, the Secretary of the
Navy was directed to cause to be built six ships, each to carry not less
than seventy-four guns; and six sloops-of-war of eighteen guns. For this
purpose, a million of dollars was appropriated; two hundred thousand
were appropriated to the purchase of land, bearing timber suitable for
the navy, and fifty thousand dollars for the making of two docks. These
laws, passed on successive days, indicated the design of a permanent
Navy Establishment. It was perfectly understood that the ships of the
line were not directed to be built for the occasional defence of the
country at that period, but were intended as the commencement of a
lasting system of defence, which was expected to increase with the
growth of the commerce and resources of the country. It was far from
our expectation that the Navy of the United States was to be limited to
six ships of the line, or to any number within the convenient means of
the country, short of a force adequate to render our flag respectable
and our navigation secure. It was not supposed that the seventy-fours
would be launched for several years, but we had hopes when they left the
stocks, a flourishing commerce would enable us to lay the keels of new
ships in their places. Under this view were the two hundred thousand
dollars appropriated, to the purchase of land producing timber fit for a
navy. With this knowledge, so plainly derivable from the policy pursued
by the Legislature, what was the Secretary of the Navy to do? It was
made his duty to build six seventy-fours and six sloops-of-war. It is
surely not expected that they were to be built on the water or in the
air, and of consequence it will be allowed that he had authority to
provide yards, for the purpose of constructing them. The public had no
yards, and it was therefore necessary to obtain ground from individuals.
As there were no persons disposed to make charitable grants, it remained
only for the United States to purchase ground in fee simple, or for a
term of years, paying a gross sum or an annual rent. The act of
Congress, directing the ships to be built, appropriated not a dollar
either for the renting or for the purchase of land. But a million of
dollars were appropriated to the building of the ships, which was
directed to be done, but which could not be done without an expenditure
for land. Can there be a plainer proposition, than that an appropriation
for a certain service, embraces every article without which the service
cannot be performed? In the present instance, the service imposed upon
the Secretary, could not be performed without obtaining navy yards at
the public expense. It therefore rested in his discretion, for the
faithful exercise of which he was accountable to the Government, either
to purchase or rent the ground, necessary for the yards. It was his duty
to conform to the views of the Legislature, and to make such an
arrangement as would be most advantageous to the public. If it answered
the object, and was most for the interest of the Government to rent,
then surely he ought to have rented it; but if it comported more with
their views, or was more to their benefit to purchase, it was then his
duty to purchase.
This inquiry, however, was never made by the committee. They never asked
the question whether it was cheaper to buy or to rent, and they have
condemned the Secretary for buying and not renting, when he had no more
authority to rent than to buy, and when by buying he has probably saved
to the United States several hundred thousand dollars. The situation of
this officer is peculiarly hard. Having been directed to build a number
of ships for the public service, he has purchased navy yards for the
purpose, and in consequence has subjected himself to the accusation of
expending public money without authority. If he had rented land for the
purpose, he would have been equally liable to the same reproach; and if
he had neglected to do either, he would have been exposed to an
impeachment. The Secretary has it fully in his power to show, that his
purchases will save a large sum of money to the United States. A navy
yard, for a seventy-four, cannot be prepared without great expense.
Under this head, I am informed by the Secretary, that one hundred
thousand dollars were expended on one frigate, the Constellation. This
was occasioned in a great degree by leasing the yard. At the expiration
of the lease, the public lose the benefit of all their expense in
preparing and improving the ground.
In addition to the inference which the Secretary might fairly make, of
an authority to purchase ground for the navy yards, if a purchase could
be made on cheaper terms than a contract of lease, he had further to
consider the intention, plainly manifested by the Legislature, of
establishing a system which would require the use of these navy yards at
a future time, beyond the duration of any common lease. Nay, he knew not
what time was to be consumed in building the ships directed, and of
course could not know for what term a contract could be made. At
present, if the Government should be disposed to sell the ships on the
stocks, they have the power to sell the navy yards, and they will have
the same power when the ships are launched; and they may thus convert in
effect the permanent purchase into a term for years, and restore to the
Treasury the money which has been expended. But, sir, what I consider as
the hardest act on the part of the majority of the committee, was their
refusal to suffer the answer of the Secretary to the letter we addressed
to him, explaining the grounds of his conduct, to accompany the
documents annexed to the report. We have been told by the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. NICHOLSON) that it was not the business of the committee
to report the opinions of the Secretary, or of any other individual. If
this be correct, I believe it was as little the business of the
committee to report their own opinions. They should have confined
themselves to the statement of facts, and upon those facts have left the
House and the nation at large to form their own opinions.
If this course had been pursued, there would have been little occasion
to publish the reasoning of Mr. Stoddert; but, as the opinion of the
committee is merely their inference from certain premises, it was due to
the public, as well as to the Secretary, that the grounds should be
explained which had led him to a different conclusion from that adopted
by the committee. This report seems, at present, intended only for
public information; certainly I must believe to give correct
information. The letter of Mr. Stoddert throws great light upon a part
of it, and when our object is only to inform the people on a subject,
why should we refuse any light which places it more clearly before
their eyes?
MONDAY, 5 o'clock P. M., May 3.
_Adjournment._
On motion, _Ordered_, That Mr. GRISWOLD and Mr. SAMUEL SMITH be
appointed a committee, on the part of this House, jointly, with such
committee as may be appointed on the part of the Senate, to wait on the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and notify him of the proposed recess of
Congress.
A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate have
appointed a committee on their part, jointly, with the committee
appointed on the part of this House, to wait on the PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES, and notify him of the proposed recess of Congress.
Mr. GRISWOLD, from the committee appointed on the part of this House,
jointly, with the committee appointed on the part of the Senate, to wait
on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and notify him of the proposed
recess of Congress, reported that the committee had performed that
service; and that the PRESIDENT signified to them he had no farther
communication to make during the present Session.
_Ordered_, That a message be sent to the Senate, to inform them that
this House, having completed the business before them, are now about to
adjourn until the first Monday in December next; and that the Clerk of
this House do go with the said message.
A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate, having
completed the Legislative business before them, are now ready to
adjourn. Whereupon,
The SPEAKER adjourned the House until the first Monday in December
next.