Mr. MCKIM moved to amend that part of the bill which directs the sale
of all the gunboats, by adding the following words: "belonging to the
United States, unfit for service, and unworthy of repairs."
This motion was agreed to without debate, ayes 56.
Mr. KEY said he was friendly to the reduction of the Navy, but not to
its annihilation. He therefore moved to strike out so much of the bill
as provides that all the frigates but three shall be "sold," and to
insert in lieu thereof, "laid up in ordinary."
Messrs. DANA and MUMFORD supported the motion.
Mr. RHEA of Tennessee made a motion, which superseded that made by Mr.
KEY, to strike out the whole of the section, except so much as related
to gunboats. He was wholly opposed to the reduction of the Navy at
present.
Mr. SMILIE said he should vote for the motion with a view to inserting
a substitute going to place the Navy now on the footing of the Peace
Establishment of 1806.
Mr. DANA was in favor of Mr. RHEA'S motion, but expressed himself very
pointedly in favor of a reform in the expenditures and conduct of the
Naval Establishment generally.
Mr. BASSETT also was in favor of Mr. RHEA'S motion. He supported the
policy of a small navy, and vindicated the establishment generally from
charges of waste or extravagance, though he was friendly to reform
wherever necessary. Mr. B. spoke nearly an hour.
Mr. COOK and Mr. RHEA of Tennessee also spoke in favor of the motion to
strike out the whole of the first section.
Mr. MACON spoke against the motion, and against the policy of a navy as
applicable to the situation of this country.
Mr. STANFORD followed Mr. MACON on the same side of the question, and
particularly reprobated the extravagant expenditure of money incident
to the naval system.
Mr. DANA spoke again on the subject of reform in the system.
Mr. MACON and Mr. STANFORD explained.
Mr. BOYD was against the reduction of the Navy under present
appearances.
The motion to strike out the remainder of the section was carried, 61
to 25.
Mr. SMILIE moved to insert, in the place of that part which was
stricken out, the following:
"And further, that the President of the United States be, and
he is hereby, authorized to keep in actual service as many of
the frigates and other armed vessels as in his judgment the
nature of the service may require, and to cause the residue to
be laid up in ordinary in convenient ports: _Provided_, the
whole number of officers and seamen shall not exceed that fixed
by the act 'in addition to the act, supplementary to the act,
providing for the Naval Peace Establishment, and for other
purposes;' passed the 21st day of April, 1806."
Mr. S. read the law alluded to in this amendment, which would go
to retain in service thirteen captains, nine masters commandant,
seventy-two lieutenants, one hundred and fifty midshipmen, and nine
hundred and twenty-five able-bodied seamen, ordinary seamen and boys.
Mr. MCKIM opposed the amendment, because he was altogether opposed to a
reduction of the Navy in the present state of the world.
Mr. SMILIE replied. He said he had no apprehension of danger to his
country from laying up a few frigates.
Mr. BASSETT stated that the whole number of seamen now in service, was
but two thousand seven hundred and twenty-three. If the number was
reduced, the expense of reducing and re-enlisting them within a short
period, would exceed the expense of keeping them in service during the
interval.
Mr. MONTGOMERY spoke in favor of the amendment, under the impression
that there was no disposition in Congress to make use of the Navy.
Although the number of seamen in service might not exceed two thousand
seven hundred and twenty, as stated, yet the President now had power
to authorize the employment of five thousand four hundred and ninety
men. The adoption of the amendment, he said, would curtail the present
annual expense, $778,000.
Mr. MUMFORD spoke against the amendment. He remarked that the
counting-house calculation of pounds, shillings, and pence, heretofore
imputed as a fault to the merchants, seemed to have been transferred to
the planters of cotton and tobacco. He did not regard a little expense
when put in competition with the national safety.
Mr. SMILIE'S amendment was negatived.
The section for disusing all the navy-yards except those at Boston, New
York, and Norfolk, having been read--
Mr. KEY moved to insert "Washington" after New York, and, speaking in
support of his motion, expatiated on the advantages possessed by a
navy-yard at the seat of Government.
Mr. BASSETT concurred with Mr. KEY in opinion; but, as he presumed the
section was only meant as an accompaniment to that part of the bill
already stricken out, he moved to strike out the whole section.
Mr. DANA opposed the amendment. Six navy-yards were certainly not
necessary for the service of the United States, and he particularly
opposed the retention of the yard at Washington.
Mr. KEY spoke in reply to Mr. DANA, and in support of Mr. BASSETT'S
motion. He defended the navy-yard at Washington against the imputations
cast on it.
Messrs. TALLMADGE and DANA spoke against the amendment.
Mr. SMILIE spoke in favor of the amendment, and expressed his
astonishment at the change which appeared to have taken place in the
House since they had voted, 60 to 31, a few days ago, to reduce the
Navy.
Mr. KEY expressed his surprise that a gentleman having as much
parliamentary experience as the gentleman who preceded him, should
be surprised at the change of votes. A majority had voted to reduce,
having different objects of reduction in view; but, when a reduction in
any one branch of expenditure was proposed, it appeared that a majority
could not agree in it. Mr. K. spoke again in favor of the amendment.
The motion to strike out the section was lost, 52 to 40.