Mr. R. NELSON said he should not, on this occasion, go into an
examination of the principles of the bill, as they were well understood
by the House. They went to practise one of the grossest impositions he
had ever known. In order to get rid of what he considered a stain on the
statute book, and a disgrace to the nation, he moved that the bill be
rejected.
The question was accordingly put from the Chair, “Shall the bill be
rejected?”
On the motion of Mr. LEIB, it was determined to take the yeas and nays.
The question was then put, Shall the bill be rejected? and passed in the
affirmative--yeas 62, nays 54, as follows:
YEAS.--Isaac Anderson, David Bard, Burwell Bassett, George M.
Bedinger, William Blackledge, John Blake, jun., Thomas Blount,
Robert Brown, William Butler, Levi Casey, John Claiborne,
Christopher Clark, Joseph Clay, Matthew Clay, John Clopton,
Frederick Conrad, John Dawson, Elias Earle, John W. Eppes,
James M. Garnett, Peterson Goodwyn, Edwin Gray, Andrew Gregg,
Silas Halsey, John Hamilton, David Holmes, Walter Jones, Thomas
Kenan, Michael Leib, Duncan McFarland, Robert Marion, Josiah
Masters, Nicholas R. Moore, Thomas Moore, John Morrow, Gurdon
S. Mumford, Roger Nelson, Thomas Newton, jun., Gideon Olin,
John Pugh, John Randolph, Thomas M. Randolph, John Rea of
Pennsylvania, Jacob Richards, Thomas Sammons, Thomas Sanford,
Ebenezer Seaver, James Sloan, John Smilie, John Smith, Samuel
Smith, Henry Southard, Thomas Spalding, Richard Stanford,
Philip R. Thompson, Abram Trigg, John Whitehill, Robert
Whitehill, David R. Williams, Alexander Wilson, Richard Wynn,
and Joseph Winston.
NAYS.--Willis Alston, jun., Joseph Barker, Silas Betton,
Barnabas Bidwell, John Campbell, John Chandler, Martin
Chittenden, Orchard Cook, Jacob Crowninshield, Richard Cutts,
Samuel W. Dana, Ezra Darby, John Davenport, jun., William
Dickson, James Elliot, Caleb Ellis, Ebenezer Elmer, William
Ely, William Findlay, James Fisk, John Fowler, Isaiah L.
Green, Seth Hastings, William Helms, David Hough, John G.
Jackson, James Kelly, Joseph Lewis, jun., Matthew Lyon, William
McCreery, Jeremiah Morrow, Jonathan O. Mosely, Jeremiah Nelson,
Timothy Pitkin, jun., Josiah Quincy, John Russell, Peter
Sailly, Martin G. Schuneman, John Cotton Smith, Joseph Stanton,
William Stedman, Lewis B. Sturges, Samuel Taggart, Benjamin
Tallmadge, Samuel Tenney, David Thomas, Thomas W. Thompson,
Uri Tracy, Killian K. Van Rensselaer, Joseph B. Varnum, Peleg
Wadsworth, Eliphalet Wickes, Marmaduke Williams, and Nathan
Williams.
So the bill was rejected.
Mr. J. RANDOLPH moved that the House adjourn. He said that a few days ago
the House had adjourned on account of the death of General Jackson. He
hoped they would now adjourn on account of his resurrection. For he had
told him, that if he could give a death-blow to the Yazoo business he
should die in peace. Adjourned, yeas 58.
TUESDAY, April 1.
_Plurality of Offices._
On motion of Mr. JOHN RANDOLPH, the House took up the report of the
Committee of the Whole on sundry resolutions agreed to by them on the
28th ultimo. When the question was put on concurring in the report of the
Committee of the Whole in their agreement to the second resolution as
follows:
2. _Resolved_, That the union of a plurality of offices in
the person of a single individual, but more especially in the
military with the civil authority, is repugnant to the spirit
of the Constitution of the United States, and tends to the
introducing of an arbitrary Government:
Mr. BIDWELL said he would very concisely assign his reasons for voting
against this resolution. It declares that “the union of a plurality of
offices in the person of a single individual, but more especially of the
military with the civil authority, is repugnant to the spirit of the
Constitution of the United States, and tends to the introducing of an
arbitrary Government.” It appeared to him that this was not a correct
declaration. If the constitution itself be referred to, it will appear
that it recognizes a union of civil and military offices in the same
person. Such a union is to be found in the First Magistrate of the United
States, who exercises the highest Executive civil functions, and is at
the same time Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, and of the militia
while in actual service. The same principle pervaded the constitution, he
believed, of every State. There was also a union of civil and military
authority in several offices, by acts of Congress. This was the case with
the marshals in certain cases, and officers who are charged with the
superintendence of Territorial affairs. If it were proper, said Mr. B.,
as I do not think it is, by a vote of this House, to undertake to define
the constitution, it still appears to me that we cannot consistently
say that the union of a plurality of offices in the person of a single
individual, but more especially of the military with the civil authority,
is repugnant to the spirit of the Constitution of the United States. A
declaration of that kind would be a vote of censure on the people of the
whole United States, for having adopted the Federal Constitution, on the
people of the several States, for having adopted their constitutions, and
on the Legislature under both Governments, for having passed laws which
authorized such a union.
Mr. J. CLAY said, the objections of the gentleman arose from not having
properly considered the nature of the union of civil and military office
in the First Magistrate. By the constitution, the military was placed in
strict subordination to the civil power. For this reason the President
of the United States had placed under his control all the officers of
the Army and Navy. The union contemplated in the resolution before you,
said Mr. C., is that which gives the actual discharge of civil powers
to an officer who has actual command of your army. I ask if it was ever
in the contemplation of the constitution, that the President should in
person head your armies and command your fleets? I believe not. There
exists in one of the Territories such a union as is contemplated in the
resolution. In Louisiana a person holding the office of Governor, is at
the same time Commander-in-chief of the Army of the United States, in
virtue of his appointment of Brigadier-General. Will any man pretend to
say that a union of offices, such as these, the discharge of whose duties
is incompatible, is such a union as is contemplated in the constitution?
No; the union in the constitution was only intended to give the President
a control over the Army and Navy; while this resolution contemplates the
positive and actual union of powers in the same person, powers which at
the same time he may be called upon to exercise at different and distant
places. To separate these powers is the object of the resolution. I hope
the resolution will be agreed to, and the separation take place.
Mr. J. RANDOLPH.--My friend from Pennsylvania has left me little to
say on the question, and indeed I have heard nothing in the shape of
argument, or assertion, but what I was prepared to hear, and of which
I apprised the House some time ago. It has come out at last from the
lips of a man who has prided himself upon being the champion of the
Constitution of the United States to-day, although but a few days ago
he threatened us with a dissolution of the Union, that the constitution
has no spirit in it. He calls on any man to lay his finger on that
spirit. What does the Constitution of the United States say? Does it not
guarantee to each State a Republican form of Government? Is there no
spirit in this? Is not the constitution then devised under the influence
of a Republican spirit, for the benefit of the people who are governed
by it, and not for the exclusive benefit of those who administer it?
Will any man pretend to say that a Republic is any thing or nothing? And
that it is congenial to such a Government that the civil and military
authority should be vested in the same hands? Is it not of the very
essence of such a Government that the military should be kept in strict
subordination to the civil power? And have not your laws, which give to
marshals in certain cases a power over the military, been passed to keep
the military under such subjection? How is the military to be kept in
such subjection, when, according to the usage of the Romans, the leader
of an army is the Governor of a province? If the constitution has no
spirit in it, it is a dead, lifeless thing, not worth the protection of
any man of sense. But I am happy that it has a spirit, which I trust will
save this nation, even if its letter shall be killed.
Mr. QUINCY said he would merely observe, that, though it were true that a
union of civil and military offices in the same person was repugnant to
the spirit of the constitution, it was not true that a union of different
offices in the same person was repugnant to it. They had to-day united
two offices in the same person, in the bill relative to the Territory of
Michigan. They had heretofore constituted several of the officers of the
Government Commissioners of the Sinking Fund. He could see nothing in
the constitution which interfered with a plurality of offices, which in
many instances was attended with great practical benefit. As there was
therefore in the constitution nothing explicit against this union, he
could not vote for the resolution.
Mr. GREGG said he believed it was contrary to the spirit of the
constitution, that civil and military offices should be united in the
same person; but, he would ask, what benefit would result from such
a declaration? The power of appointing to office was vested in the
President and Senate, who were sworn to support the constitution. They
were, therefore, the judges of the powers with which they were invested.
In the exercise of this power, they have actually declared that they
do possess it. What does this resolution amount to? If they undertook
to declare the President guilty of such a flagrant act as involved a
violation of the constitution, it was their business to impeach him. Mr.
G. said, as he could see no good likely to arise from this resolution, he
should not vote for it. The practice it referred to was not new, though
he had always thought it wrong. He recollected, that, some years since,
the Governor of the North-western Territory was likewise Superintendent
of Indian Affairs and Commander-in-chief of the Army, for all which
appointments he drew pay, though no notice had been taken of it. Other
instances of the same kind might be pointed out. He did believe this
union was contrary to the spirit of the constitution--to the true spirit
of a Republican Government--and if the gentleman from Virginia would
bring forward an amendment to the constitution to prohibit such a union,
he would vote for it.
Mr. J. RANDOLPH.--Six years ago, there could not have been a doubt of the
right of this House to pass this resolution--now, the right is disputed.
Have we not a right to pass a resolution referring to the constitution,
in order to bring in a law grounded on it? Do we not do this every day?
One word as to the appointment of General Wilkinson. Gentlemen are fond
of sheltering themselves behind great names. I have no hesitation in
saying I think the Executive was wrong in making that appointment. I
have no hesitation in saying so here, though gentlemen who join me out
of doors are reluctant to make the same declaration on this floor. I do
not think, however, the persons who made the appointment as reprehensible
as the persons at whose importunate solicitation it was made. I believe
that a man of good sense, and of upright intentions, may be induced to do
that which his own judgment will afterwards condemn. It is well known,
that the ante-chambers of our great men were crowded with applicants
for offices in Louisiana. I have understood that for every office there
were at least one hundred and fifty applications. Thus much for the idea
which has been thrown out of the existence of a scarcity of characters to
supply these offices.
Mr. VARNUM considered the resolution as going too far, and said it was a
very common thing for two offices to be united in one man. It had been
usual to unite the diplomatic character with the military command in our
intercourse with the Indians, and a diplomatic character had likewise
been given to our naval commander in the Mediterranean. Instances of a
plurality of offices in one person were very numerous. If there existed,
at present, any case, in which such a union was incompatible with the
discharge of official duties, he hoped it would be pointed out; whether
there was or was not, he could not say. But where did the responsibility
for such appointments lie? Not that House, but the other branch of the
Legislature was responsible; for the correct discharge of whose duties
they were accountable to the people. Where, then, was the propriety
of an interference by the House? If the President made an appointment
against the spirit of the constitution, the people would know it. Was
it presumable that if a law was to pass this House, predicated on the
resolution under consideration, the other branch of the Legislature would
agree to it, after having sanctioned the appointments at which it is
levelled? Was this House to sit as a court of censure? The constitution
did not delegate such a power. Our very laws, in various cases, direct
the union of office prescribed by the resolution. Ought we not, then,
in the first place, to repeal those laws before we pass a resolution in
direct hostility to them?
Mr. V. said, he had no hesitation to observe, that the military and
civil office should, in general, be kept distinct; but he believed there
were cases where it was necessary. He was perfectly willing to leave the
responsibility where the constitution had placed it--in the hands of the
President and Senate. With regard to the union of the military office in
the cases alluded to, he would not undertake to say whether it was proper
or not. He could readily, however, conceive, that the union arose from
the most correct motive, as the country was a frontier, which might be
menaced with danger, and which might require the united exercise of the
military and civil authority to repel it.
Mr. J. CLAY said he would ask whether the ordinary union of military
and civil powers in the Governors of the Territories was such as that
contemplated in the resolution? The case of the Governor of Louisiana had
been alluded to, where the same person, he believed, received the pay of
Governor and Brigadier. Is that the case with the other Governors? He
believed gentlemen would not say that it was necessary that the Governor
of New Orleans should be a brigadier-general in the army; and yet they
allowed that to be the most vulnerable point on the frontier. If, then,
they say that the union is necessary in one case, they will admit that it
ought to be in the other.
Mr. LEIB said that, viewing the resolution as an abstract proposition, he
had no objection to giving it his support; but if it was intended as a
side attack upon the Administration, he was not prepared to vote for it.
Before he was prepared to act on it under this view, he wished for facts
which were not before the House. He, therefore, moved a postponement of
the resolution till Monday.
The motion to postpone was lost.
The question was then taken on agreeing to the resolution, and decided in
the negative--yeas 31, nays 81.
WEDNESDAY, April 2.
_Claim of Beaumarchais._
Mr. BASSETT presented to the House a petition of Amelia Eugene
Beaumarchais, heiress and representative of the late Caron de
Beaumarchais, deceased, by J. A. Chevallie, her attorney, which was
received and read, praying to be relieved from an unfavorable settlement
at the Treasury of the United States, of the accounts of the deceased,
for supplies furnished, and services rendered to the United States,
during the Revolutionary war with Great Britain.
_Ordered_, That the said petition be referred to the Committee of Claims.
_Charlestown, Va._
Mr. JACKSON called for the order of the day, on the report of the
Committee of Commerce and Manufactures, on the petition of sundry
inhabitants of Charlestown, in Virginia, praying that that place should
be made a port of entry.
Mr. LEIB moved an indefinite postponement of the report.
Mr. JACKSON opposed this motion, and spoke at some length in favor of the
constitutional right of the petitioners to be allowed a port of entry.
Mr. CROWNINSHIELD, though against postponement and in favor of discussing
the principle, contested the right.
Mr. LEIB withdrew his motion; when the motion to consider the report was
disagreed to--only 13 members rising in favor of it.
_Exclusion of Army and Naval Officers from Civil Offices._
The House took up the unfinished business of yesterday, being the report
of the Committee of the Whole, agreeing to the following resolution,
offered by Mr. J. RANDOLPH:
3d. _Resolved_, That provision ought to be made, by law, to
render any officer in the Army or Navy of the United States
incapable of holding any civil office under the United States.
Mr. FISK moved to postpone this resolution indefinitely.
This motion was supported by Messrs. FISK, ELMER, and COOK; and opposed
by Messrs. J. CLAY, J. RANDOLPH, and J. C. SMITH.
When the question was taken by yeas and nays, and the motion disagreed
to--yeas 43, nays 72.
The question was then taken that the House do agree with the Committee of
the whole House in their agreement to the said resolution, and resolved
in the affirmative--yeas 94, nays 21, as follows:
YEAS.--Willis Alston, jun., Isaac Anderson, David Bard, Burwell
Bassett, George M. Bedinger, Silas Betton, William Blackledge,
John Blake, junior, Thomas Blount, Robert Brown, William
Butler, John Campbell, Levi Casey, Martin Chittenden, John
Claiborne, Christopher Clark, Joseph Clay, Matthew Clay, John
Clopton, Frederick Conrad, Leonard Covington, John Dawson,
William Dickson, Elias Earle, Peter Early, James Elliot, Caleb
Ellis, William Ely, John W. Eppes, William Findlay, James
Fisk, James M. Garnett, Peterson Goodwyn, Edwin Gray, Andrew
Gregg, Silas Halsey, John Hamilton, Seth Hastings, David
Holmes, David Hough, John G. Jackson, Walter Jones, Thomas
Kenan, John Lambert, Michael Leib, Joseph Lewis, junior, Duncan
MacFarland, Robert Marion, Josiah Masters, Nicholas R. Moore,
Thomas Moore, Jeremiah Morrow, John Morrow, Jonathan O. Mosely,
Gurdon S. Mumford, Thomas Newton, junior, Gideon Olin, Timothy
Pitkin, jun., John Pugh, Josiah Quincy, John Randolph, Thomas
M. Randolph, John Rea of Pennsylvania, Jacob Richards, Peter
Sailly, Thomas Sammons, Thomas Sanford, Martin G. Schuneman,
John Smilie, John Cotton Smith, John Smith, Samuel Smith,
Thomas Spalding, Richard Stanford, Joseph Stanton, William
Stedman, Lewis B. Sturges, Samuel Taggart, Benjamin Tallmadge,
Samuel Tenney, David Thomas, Philip R. Thompson, Thomas W.
Thompson, Uri Tracy, Abram Trigg, Killian K. Van Rensselaer,
Peleg Wadsworth, Robert Whitehill, David R. Williams, Marmaduke
Williams, Nathan Williams, Alexander Wilson, Richard Wynn, and
Joseph Winston.
NAYS.--Evan Alexander, Joseph Barker, Barnabas Bidwell, John
Chandler, Orchard Cook, Jacob Crowninshield, Richard Cutts,
Ezra Darby, John Davenport, junior, Ebenezer Elmer, Isaiah
L. Green, James Kelly, William McCreery, Roger Nelson, John
Rhea of Tennessee, John Russell, Ebenezer Seaver, James Sloan,
Joseph B. Varnum, John Whitehill, and Eliphalet Wickes.
_Ordered_, That a bill, or bills, be brought, in pursuant to the said
resolution; and that Mr. JOHN RANDOLPH, Mr. DAVID R. WILLIAMS, and Mr.
JOHN C. SMITH, do prepare and bring in the same.
FRIDAY, April 4.
_Prohibition of Military Officers from holding Civil Office._
Mr. JOHN RANDOLPH, from the committee appointed on the second instant,
presented a bill to prohibit officers of the Army and Navy from holding
or exercising any civil office; which was read twice, and committed to a
Committee of the Whole to-morrow.
TUESDAY, April 8.
_Motion to Adjourn._
On motion of Mr. EARLY,
“_Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America, in Congress assembled_, That
the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of
Representatives be, and they are hereby, authorized to adjourn
their respective Houses on Wednesday, the sixteenth of April
instant.”
_Ordered_, That the Clerk of this House do carry the said resolution to
the Senate, and desire their concurrence.
THURSDAY, April 10.
_Navy Appropriations._
The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the bill
making appropriations for the support of the Navy of the United States,
during the year one thousand eight hundred and six.
The bill was read by sections.
The CHAIRMAN having read that part of the bill which makes an
appropriation “for repair of vessels, store rent, pay of armorers,
freight, and other contingent expenses,”[37]
Mr. J. RANDOLPH moved to fill the blank with $411,950.
Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS moved to strike out the words “and other contingent
expenses.” He said he made this motion with a view of ascertaining for
what objects these contingent expenses were intended to provide. He would
ask the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means for information
on this point. He believed the sum contemplated to be appropriated
unnecessarily large.
Mr. J. RANDOLPH said the gentleman had asked for information which it was
not in his power to give. He was as much in the dark as the gentleman
as to the items of contingent expenditure; and he should not have
moved to fill this blank with so large a sum, but from the conviction
that whether they provided the money or not, it would be spent, and an
additional appropriation be made the next session. Mr. R. said he viewed
an appropriation bill, under present circumstances, a mere matter of
form; he believed also all the items of appropriation might as well be
lumped together, and it might be declared that a million of dollars were
appropriated. Had he been governed by his own opinion, instead of the
forms which had been observed, he would have been in favor of drafting
the bill in this way, for this reason: If the expenditures of the Navy
exceeded this sum by $600,000 there was no doubt the next Congress would
make good the deficiency without any inquiry. He believed this, as what
had taken place once might take place again.
Mr. R. said he had addressed a note to the head of the department,
stating that on such a day the Committee of Ways and Means wished the
appropriation bill to be taken up, and expressing a desire that he would
give them information of the items of contingent expenditure, as they
consider the sum required unnecessarily large. He had received an answer
to this effect--the Secretary said he did not think the sum too large,
without entering into any explanation. Mr. R. added, gentlemen may fill
the blank as they please; it will be no check on the expenditure.
The Committee divided on agreeing to the sum named by Mr. RANDOLPH--ayes
46, noes 37.
Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS moved to strike out “and other contingent expenses.”
He had before said that he had been impelled to make this motion from a
sense of duty. This impression had been strengthened by the statement of
the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means. He could not think it
proper to make an appropriation to so large an amount, when the proper
organ of the House had without success required information from the head
of the department, from whom he had only received a mere opinion. He
hoped the committee would agree to strike out this general appropriation,
that all the items of contingent expenditure might be stated to the
House, and thereby form some check on the expenditure.
Mr. LEIB said he perceived in another part of the bill other mention
made of contingent expenses. He would be glad to know what they were.
The House ought to know the various items, or otherwise make a general
provision for contingent expenses, and leave it to the head of the
department to apply the money as he pleases.
Mr. DANA said the first contingent appropriation was for the navy, the
second for the marine corps. If striking out the proposed words would
enable the committee to obtain the information sought, he should vote
for the motion. He had no objection to voting liberally for a navy; but
he thought the Legislature ought to be well informed, as they would
otherwise scarcely discharge their duty to their constituents.
The motion of Mr. WILLIAMS, to strike out “and other contingent
expenses,” was disagreed to--ayes 32.
Mr. J. RANDOLPH moved to strike out that part of the bill making an
appropriation “for completing the marine barracks at the city of
Washington.” Mr. R. said this object appeared to require a standing
appropriation; and, though the building was finite, the appropriation
appeared to be infinite.
Motion agreed to--ayes 66.
The committee rose and reported the bill. The House having taken the
report of the committee into consideration,
Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS, called for the reading of the document, stating
the annual expenditures on the Navy, by which it appeared that the
expenditures had been as follows:
For 1798 $ 570,314 24
1799 2,848,187 26
1800 3,385,340 48
1801 2,117,420 74
1802 946,213 24
1803 1,107,925 32
1804 1,246,502 74
1805 1,409,949 67
--------------
Total 13,631,853 00
==============
Mr. D. R. W. renewed his motion to strike out “and other contingent
expenses.” He thought the House ought, under existing circumstances, to
show a disposition to economize, and to curtail the expenses of the Navy.
What is the necessity for this expenditure? Why, the Constitution is in
the mud, and the President[38] on her beam ends! Thirteen millions and a
half have been already expended, and it is now proposed to add $411,000
for contingent expenses. In making this motion I have no object but to
confine the Navy Department to proper expenses; but let them first state
what they are.
The SPEAKER observed that this motion could not be received until the
amendments of the committee had been acted upon.
Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS moved to strike out “for ordnance $50,000,”[39] He did
not perceive the use of this appropriation. No gentlemen accustomed to
travel, but must have seen the unprotected state of the ordnance; look at
the Turk’s house, you will there see it lying exposed. To his knowledge
it was in many other instances in the same situation.
This motion was lost--ayes 33.
The amendment of the committee to fill the blank with “$50,000,” was
agreed to, without a division.
Mr. EPPES offered a proviso declaring that a larger sum than $30,000
shall not be expended on the repairs of any one frigate.
Mr. J. RANDOLPH.--I shall vote against this motion on the same principle
that I voted to fill the blank relative to contingent expenses, with
$411,000. If we cannot restrain the expenditures of the Navy Department
within the sum annually fixed, after giving as much as is asked for, is
it not the idlest thing to attempt to restrain them by giving less? The
principle on which I voted for filling that blank was this: To give to
the Navy Department what it asks, that if, at the end of the year, more
shall be expended, the blame may fall on the shoulders of the Secretary,
and not on us. The sum appropriated for contingent expenses amounts to
$411,000; this is not the half, but it is more than a third of the whole
sum appropriated, and it may be expended on repairs or any other item of
contingent expenditure. It is enormous. But withhold the appropriation,
and where are you? The expense may be incurred, and the Government called
on to make good the deficiency; and there the business will end.
With regard to the sum requisite for the repair of a frigate, her
situation between this and the next year cannot be foreseen. The
Secretary may have estimated $30,000 as sufficient to repair any one
frigate as they now stand; but they may be placed in such a condition
as to require a much larger sum. But I am against the amendment, said
Mr. R., not only for these, but for other reasons. I will never consent
to legislate in such a way as to make it appear that we did legislate
intelligently, when in fact we do not. If I can be satisfied that $30,000
will be sufficient for the repair of a frigate, I may be induced to
vote for it. But even this would be unnecessary. For, after all, the
business must be confided to the Head of the Department; and he will
be a better judge of the sum required for the repair of a vessel than
we are. If he cannot be trusted, we ought, in my opinion, either to
refuse the appropriation altogether, or take a very different step from
that now proposed. For these reasons I am unwilling to appear to act
understandingly on a subject which I know nothing about.
Mr. EPPES.--When I made this motion, it was under the impression that
what is correct in private, is also correct in public conduct. We know
that, when a vessel owned by a merchant gets in a certain state, it is
more advisable to sell than to repair her. I do not know whether I have
fixed the proper sum. All I wish to try is, whether the United States are
disposed to repair at all events their frigates, whatever their state may
be, or limit the sum, after expending which they shall be abandoned. I
confess, however, that I am not anxious on this point. I merely wish to
try the sense of the House.
On agreeing to Mr. E.’s motion, the House divided--ayes 38, noes 57.
Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS.--The curtailing Navy expenses may be unpopular, but
I conceive it to be right. For that purpose I will renew the motion I
offered in committee. I am of opinion that all the expenditures of this
department should pass in review before the House. When I first came to
Washington, I went to the navy yard. I there saw an elegant building
going on. I inquired under what appropriation this was authorized, and
was answered, under the appropriation for contingent expenses. I remarked
other expenditures, and received the same information. These expenditures
may be all proper; but I think that every gentleman on this floor ought
to be enabled to tell his constituents how the public money is expended.
Talk to them of contingencies, and they will understand as little of the
term as of land in the moon. Mr. W. concluded by moving to strike out
“and other contingent expenses,” and calling the yeas and nays.
Mr. SMILIE said that no gentleman would censure him for attachment to
the Navy. He never had been, nor was he now attached to a Navy. But the
situation in which they were placed was well known. If there was time, he
should be glad to have every item of expenditure produced by the proper
officer, that they might know how to act. He was fully aware that, in the
Navy Department, it was more difficult to anticipate the expenses than in
any other. Though, therefore, he was no friend to a Navy, as it had not
been thought proper to abandon the establishment, he considered it right
to make such grants as were necessary for its support. If it was early
in the session, or if he thought it possible to get the information, he
should vote for calling for it. But as they were reduced to the necessity
of saying at once whether they would, or would not support the Navy, he
should be in favor of making this grant.
The yeas and nays having been taken on Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS’s motion,
were--yeas 25, nays 86.
Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS moved to recommit the bill to a Committee of the
Whole, with the view of obtaining information from the Secretary of the
Navy before it was definitively acted on.
The motion was disagreed to--ayes 41, noes 56; when the bill was ordered
to be engrossed for a third reading without a division.
The motion to read the bill a third time on Saturday was carried--ayes
55, when the following motion, made by Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS, was agreed to
without a division:
_Resolved_, That the Secretary of the Navy be directed to lay
before this House an estimate of the respective sums necessary
to be appropriated for repair of vessels, store rent, pay of
armorers, freight, and contingent expenses of the Navy for the
year 1806.
FRIDAY, April 11.
_Exclusion of Military and Naval Officers from Civil Employment._
The bill to prohibit officers of the Army and Navy of the United States
from holding or exercising any civil office, was read a third time.
Mr. GREGG said he never found himself involved in greater difficulty.
He was in favor of the principle involved in the bill, and yet he could
not vote for its passage. He believed that it was a correct principle
that civil and military offices should be kept distinct, and he wished
the constitution had prohibited the union. In relation to the individual
on whom it was mentioned yesterday this law was to operate, he was
satisfied it would be best if he could be removed from one of the offices
he held; and if such a course had been pursued, he should have been in
favor of destroying the office of brigadier-general to get rid of the
officer. The effect of this resolution would be to take from a man an
office which he held under the constitution. This power they did not
possess. The only constitutional way to effect the object was to destroy
the office. He would agree likewise to amend the constitution, so as to
declare the union of civil and military office incompatible, or to a
law providing that after a certain time no person should hold two such
offices; and he should, if practicable, be for doing away the office
of Governor of Louisiana, because he believed the person holding that
office was, by his course of proceedings, producing a disturbance in
the Territory. But although he entertained a favorable opinion of the
principle of the bill, and would wish to remove that gentleman from one
of the offices he held, yet he must vote against the bill, as it went to
the unconstitutional removal of an officer.
Mr. SMILIE thought the passage of this bill involved a principle of a
very serious nature. As to the abstract principle involved in the bill,
he did not dispute its correctness, or that it ought to have been a part
of the constitution. But the question was, whether they had a right by a
legislative act, to prejudice any other branch of the Government. They
were not in his opinion warranted in travelling out of their own sphere
to remove existing evils. There was but one way in which the constitution
provided for the removal of a public officer. It says “the President,
Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States, shall be
removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason,
bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Here was the true and
only sphere in which the House could move. If the constitution did not
give the right of removal in any other way, it did not exist; and if
they undertook by a legislative act to remove a man constitutionally
appointed, who would pretend to say what mischief might not result from
it? For these reasons he should vote against the bill.
Mr. QUINCY said it appeared to him that one of the arguments urged by
gentlemen against this bill was fallacious--that which considered it
an invasion of the rights of the Executive. This argument went on the
assumption that the President would necessarily sign the bill sent to
him, which might or might not be the fact. If he accedes to it, the
argument of gentlemen falls to the ground; and if it shall be returned,
it will then be time enough to discuss the constitutional principle. With
regard to the general expediency of passing such a bill, the strongest
arguments would be found in favor of it on the page of history. If
history proved any thing, it was that the condition of those was most
degraded who lived under the colonial governments of Republics. This
was amply proved by the annals of the Carthaginian and Roman Republics.
The territory under contemplation was a kind of colonial government,
and might in the course of time be a powerful engine in the hands of
the Executive. He wished, therefore, for a separation of the civil and
military powers which might arise under it.
Mr. SMILIE said if the question was what was most convenient or
best, he should have no difficulty in agreeing with the gentleman
from Massachusetts. But it rested on higher ground--on what was
constitutional. If he had a right to make the constitution, he would have
no hesitation in separating the civil and military powers. But he could
not forget the occurrences which had taken place in the State he had the
honor to represent in part. In that State there had been but a single
branch of the Legislature without any Executive veto on the passage of
the laws. He had seen that Government destroyed by sweeping away the
Executive power before the irresistible authority of the Legislature,
and he had seen the people obliged, from this circumstance, to give up
that constitution and frame a new one. The measure under consideration
was of the same kind. The constitutional powers of the Executive ought
not to be encroached upon, unless the object was to produce confusion.
He had seen the effects of such measures, and deprecated them. You may,
said Mr. S., abolish the office, and the officer falls with it; but in
no other way, while the office continues, can you remove the officer
except by impeachment. Shall we, then, in order to get rid of a man who
may not have done right (and as for myself I am ready to answer I have
no affection for the man) go into a new scene, the length of which we
cannot foresee? This principle once established may lead to any thing;
it may lead to a destruction of the powers of the Executive altogether.
I am as tenacious of the powers of the Legislature as any man, but I
believe the powers of the Executive to be equally necessary. Indeed,
I think there is more danger to be apprehended from the overwhelming
power of the Legislature, than from the powers of the Executive. For
the Legislature is so powerful that there can be little danger of the
Executive encroaching upon it.
Mr. EPPES.--If I took the same view of the operation of this law with the
gentleman from Pennsylvania, I should certainly give it my negative. As,
however, I voted for the resolution on which it is founded, and consider
the law in conformity with the resolution, I will assign, in a few words,
the reasons which will govern my vote.
We have been told that all the departments of Government are independent
of each other. No man denies the correctness of this principle. Let us
not interfere with the constitutional rights of the other departments,
nor abandon our own. The Executive has by the constitution the right
of nominating for office any citizen of the United States, whether an
officer of the Army and Navy, or not. This being a constitutional
right, he certainly cannot be deprived of it by law; the right remains,
and may be exercised if the law passes; the law merely severs the civil
and military offices, and leaves the military officer to decide whether
he will vacate his military command by holding or accepting a civil
office; the Executive will have the same right to appoint--the individual
will have the same right to accept the civil office as heretofore, but
the acceptance vacates his command in the Army or Navy. If, then, the
Executive right to appoint, and the right of the officer to accept,
remains after the passage of this law, how can gentlemen contend that
the constitutional right of appointment is narrowed? All the difficulty
on the present occasion arises from the law being made to bear on the
constitutional right of appointment. It is intended to operate only on
offices in the Army or Navy which are created by law, to the tenure of
which we may annex such conditions as the public good may require. Under
the constitution we have a right to prescribe rules for the government of
the Army or Navy. In passing this law we add a new clause to the articles
of war, viz: That an officer of the Army or Navy shall not hold or accept
a civil office. Do gentlemen really suppose that we have no right to make
this rule? If we can say that an officer shall not get drunk, that he
shall have short hair, a coat of a certain form; that he shall not absent
himself from his duty; or if we can in fact annex any other condition
calculated to ensure to the public his services, why may we not declare
by law that he shall not hold or accept a civil office, he shall forfeit
his military command? The public welfare is the basis of the rules for
the government of the Army and Navy; we have a right to prescribe such
rules as the public good requires, and it is our duty to establish such
as will ensure to us the services of our military officers in that
station to which they are appointed.
But we are told we are about to remove from office a civil officer
by law. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has read the clause of
the constitution which provides for the removal of civil officers
by impeachment. This law is not to operate on civil but on
military officers; civil officers, it is true, are removed by
impeachment--military officers by such forms as we think proper to
prescribe by law; the operation of this law will be precisely the same
with any other new rule prescribed for the government of the Army or
Navy. Suppose we were to pass a law that any officer found drunk after
the 1st of July next shall forfeit his office--his having been drunk
before would not subject him to the penalty of the law--but his being
drunk after the first of July next would deprive him of his office. Apply
this to the case of a civil officer. An officer of the Army or Navy
having accepted a civil office, or holding a civil office, does not at
present vacate his military office; the reason is obvious--there is no
law against it. If, however, after the first of July next, he accepts
or continues to hold a civil office, he forfeits his military command
under the new article of war which this law establishes. The law severs
the two offices, declares them incompatible with each other, and leaves
the individual free to make his election. As to the general principle
that the civil and military ought to be separate and distinct, I have no
doubt. If the principle is correct, the law ought to extend to all cases,
not only such as may hereafter arise, but to those which at present exist.
Mr. STANFORD supported, and Messrs. FINDLAY and SLOAN opposed the bill;
when the question was taken by yeas and nays on the passage of the
bill--yeas 64, nays 34, as follows:
YEAS.--Willis Alston, Isaac Anderson, Burwell Bassett, George
M. Bedinger, Silas Betton, John Blake, jr., Thomas Blount,
William Butler, Levi Casey, John Claiborne, Christopher
Clark, Joseph Clay, Matthew Clay, John Dawson, Elias Earle,
Peter Early, James Elliot, Caleb Ellis, William Ely, John W.
Eppes, James M. Garnett, Peterson Goodwyn, Edwin Gray, Seth
Hastings, David Holmes, John G. Jackson, Walter Jones, Michael
Leib, Matthew Lyon, Duncan McFarland, Robert Marion, Josiah
Masters, Nicholas R. Moore, Thomas Moore, Jeremiah Morrow, John
Morrow, Gurdon S. Mumford, Thomas Newton, jr., Gideon Olin,
Josiah Quincy, John Randolph, Thomas M. Randolph, John Rea of
Pennsylvania, Jacob Richards, Thomas Sammons, Thomas Sanford,
Martin G. Schuneman, John Cotton Smith, John Smith, Samuel
Smith, Thomas Spalding, Richard Stanford, Lewis B. Sturges,
Samuel Taggart, Benjamin Tallmadge, Philip R. Thompson, Thomas
W. Thompson, Uri Tracy, Abram Trigg, Robert Whitehill, David R.
Williams, Alexander Wilson, Richard Wynn, and Joseph Winston.
NAYS.--David Bard, Joseph Barker, Barnabas Bidwell, John
Chandler, Jacob Crowninshield, Richard Cutts, Ezra Darby,
Ebenezer Elmer, William Findlay, John Fowler, Andrew Gregg,
Isaiah L. Green, James Kelly, William McCreery, Jeremiah
Nelson, Timothy Pitkin, jr., John Pugh, John Rea of Tennessee,
John Russell, Peter Sailly, Ebenezer Seaver, James Sloan, John
Smilie, Henry Southard, Joseph Stanton, David Thomas, Philip
Van Cortlandt, Killian K. Van Rensselaer, Joseph B. Varnum,
Peleg Wadsworth, John Whitehill, Eliphalet Wickes, Marmaduke
Williams, and Nathan Williams.
SATURDAY, April 12.
_Naval Appropriations._
The bill making appropriations for the support of the Navy was read the
third time.
Mr. J. C. SMITH moved to recommit it, for the purpose of restoring the
provision for completing the marine barracks at the city of Washington,
the amount of expense attending which, he understood, had been already
partly expended.
The motion to recommit the bill having obtained--yeas 54--the House went
into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. J. C. SMITH in the Chair.
Mr. J. CLAY observed, that since the House had agreed to strike out the
provision for completing the barracks, he had understood that more money
had been applied to this purpose than had been appropriated, and that
it had been drawn from the private funds of one of the officers, under
an understanding with the Head of the Department. He, therefore, moved
to restore the item “for completing the marine barracks at the city of
Washington, three thousand five hundred dollars.”
Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS said he should not make any objection to this motion.
He would only call the attention of the House to the regard they had
heretofore manifested to specific appropriations, under the hope that
something would be done to circumscribe contingencies. He believed that
this particular sum had been expended much to the interest of the country.
Mr. LEIB said, he was not very fond of making appropriations in this
way--for particular officers to run into unauthorized expenditures,
and then to call on Congress to make good the deficiency. Is this a
provision for completing the house for the commandant? Is that the marine
barracks? If not, then under what appropriation is it made? Is it under
that of contingencies? Look at the buildings at the navy yard; is all
this expense incurred out of the contingent fund? If it is not, it is not
authorized by law. Mr. L. said, he did not know that he should make any
objection to this item; but he thought it full time to check this loose
mode of procedure.
The question was then put, and the motion of Mr. J. CLAY was agreed to
without a division.
Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS said, he wished so to modify that part of the bill
which appropriated four hundred and eleven thousand nine hundred and
fifty dollars “for repair of vessels, store rent, pay of armorers,
freight, and other contingent expenses,” as to separate the items; to
give the Department all it asked, but fix a particular sum to each item.
Mr. CONRAD opposed the motion, and remarked that the expenditure under
one item might fall short of the sum appropriated, which would require
that the deficiency should be made up from the surplus of another.
Mr. DANA said this amendment was warranted by the former usage of the
House, and the message of the President of the United States. At the
first session of the seventh Congress the President had observed that--
“In our care, too, of the public contributions intrusted to our
direction, it would be prudent to multiply barriers against
their dissipation, by appropriating specific sums to every
specific purpose susceptible of definition; by disallowing
all applications of money, varying from the appropriation
in object, or transcending it in amount; by reducing the
undefined field of contingencies, and thereby circumscribing
discretionary powers over money.”
This opinion had been given five years ago; and they might now infer that
it had been found that it could not be carried into effect, as to the
military or naval service. Mr. D. said he considered the gentleman from
South Carolina as bringing up this question directly before the House:
Will you adhere to specific appropriations, or will you abandon them? Mr.
D. said he had never been in favor of them in relation to the Navy or
Army.
The question was then taken on the motion of Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS, which
was disagreed to--yeas 32, nays 51--when the committee rose, and reported
the bill, which was passed without a division.
MONDAY, April 14.
_Duty on Salt._
Mr. J. RANDOLPH said he was about to call the attention of the House to a
subject which he should not have probably brought into view, but for the
change wrought in the state of the revenue, in consequence of the peace
with Tripoli. Among the different articles from which moneys were drawn,
there was none so heavily burdened as salt; and it would be recollected
that it was one of the necessaries of life, and an article, the free use
and consumption of which was of material importance to the agriculture
of the country. Two acts had been passed laying a duty on this article.
It was no new thing to wish--it was, indeed, extremely desirable to
diminish, if not to take off this duty, and for that purpose he submitted
the following resolution:
_Resolved_, That the Committee of Ways and Means be instructed
to inquire into the expediency of repealing so much of any act
as lays a duty on salt; and to report such provision as may, in
their opinion, be calculated to meet the deficiency occasioned
by that repeal.
Mr. THOMAS said the Committee of Ways and Means, of which the gentleman
from Virginia, (Mr. J. RANDOLPH,) who has made the motion, was and still
is Chairman, were instructed by this House in the early part of last
session, on a motion which he had the honor then to submit, to inquire
into the expediency of reducing the duty on salt, and, if he recollected
right, they were directed to report by bill, or otherwise; but, from some
cause or other, to him unknown, that committee had never yet made any
report on that subject. Courtesy might induce him to impute this neglect
to the multiplicity of business put into the hands of the members of that
committee.
He, Mr. T., always considered the duty on this article too high, and
falling particularly heavy on the agricultural part of the community.
It was now, and always had been his wish, to reduce it as soon as our
revenue would permit, if consistent with the provisions made for paying
off our national debt, and meeting the other exigencies of Government.
For his part, he was at a loss, however, to discover that the present
situation of our revenue, and the calls on Government for expenditure,
together with the present aspect of our foreign relations, warranted
this measure more now than last year. It was true that the war with
the Barbary Powers up the Mediterranean had ceased, but it was also
true, that the two and a half per cent. additional duty on goods paying
_ad valorem_ duties has likewise ceased with the peace concluded with
Tripoli. This duty was laid for the support of, and was more than
adequate to the expense of that war.
Mr. J. RANDOLPH said he certainly did not deny the existence of such
a resolution. He had only observed that he did not recollect having
received it from the Clerk.
The Clerk read the resolution offered last session by Mr. THOMAS, on
the 7th of December, 1804, which was such as he had stated, and which
appeared to have received the sanction of the House.
Mr. ALSTON then moved that the resolution should be referred to a
Committee of the Whole, which, after a few words in opposition by Mr.
LEIB, was disagreed to--yeas 22; when the original motion obtained
without a division.
WEDNESDAY, April 16.
_Duties on Salt._
The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the bill
repealing the acts laying duties on salt, and continuing in force for a
certain time the first section of the act, entitled “An act further to
protect the commerce and seamen of the United States against the Barbary
Powers,” as follows:
SEC. 1. _Be it enacted, &c._, That from and after the ---- day
of ---- next, so much of any act, or acts, as lays a duty on
imported salt, be, and the same hereby is, repealed, and from
and after the day aforesaid, salt shall be imported into the
United States free of duty.
SEC. 2. _And be it further enacted_, That, from and after the
first day of January next, so much of any act, or acts, as
allows a bounty on exported salt provisions, and pickled fish,
in lieu of drawback of the duties on the salt employed in
curing the same, and so much of any act, or acts, as makes an
allowance to the owners and crews of fishing vessels, in lieu
of drawback of the duties paid on the salt used by the same,
shall be, and the same hereby is, repealed.[40]
SEC. 3. _And be it further enacted_, That so much of the act,
passed on the 25th day of March, 1804, entitled An act further
to protect the commerce and seamen of the United States against
the Barbary Powers, as is contained in the first section of the
said act, be, and the same hereby is, continued in force until
the end of the next session of Congress, and no longer.
Mr. QUINCY moved so to amend the first section as to repeal the act
laying a duty on salt, additional to that originally imposed, so as
to take off at present the duty of eight cents a bushel. He said he
was of the opinion that taking off the whole duty on salt would have
an injurious effect. A difference of twenty cents on the bushel would
operate very seriously on those who had already made shipments. It was
part of the duty of a legislator to avoid making such sudden changes as
tended to destroy the confidence of the mercantile world in the stability
of the laws. Whenever changes were made, they ought, in his opinion, to
be gradual. Although he considered the general effect of this measure
most important, yet, by too sudden an operation, it might affect a
respectable class of individuals very injuriously. He would state the
effect which he apprehended it would have. Suppose the repeal should
take effect on the first day of July. A cargo of salt generally averages
about four thousand bushels; the prime cost at Liverpool was about eleven
cents a bushel. The cost of the cargo would, therefore, be only $440;
the duty would amount to $800; the freight, &c., to about $1,000; making
an aggregate of $2,240, which would be the cost in this country, on a
mercantile calculation, supposing the present duties to remain in force.
The present price of salt in this country was about fifty-three cents a
bushel, which would produce something less than $2,240. The reason of
the sum for which it is sold being less than that it costs is, that salt
is merely made use of, in most cases, as a return cargo. Taking off the
duty of twenty cents, would reduce the price to thirty-three cents a
bushel, which would detract $920 from the value of the cargo, and would
be more than double the prime cost of the salt. To so great a reduction,
so suddenly made, Mr. QUINCY said he objected. He had, he said, another
reason for being against the section as it stood. The duty on salt was
among the duties pledged for the payment of the national debt. At the
time this pledge was made, the duty was twelve cents. The additional
duty of eight cents was afterwards imposed. His object was, to reduce
the existing duty eight cents, and to let the original duty of twelve
cents stand, at least, until some notice had been given to the mercantile
world. He believed that a reduction of the duty was highly desirable, and
would be very popular. He might not, perhaps, object to an entire repeal
if time were allowed him to consult his constituents, some of whom might
possibly be ruined by it. All things considered, he thought it would be
best to reduce the duty at present eight cents. This would leave Congress
at liberty, at their next session, to take the entire repeal into
consideration, which might be done in case they considered it eligible.
Mr. J. RANDOLPH said he should prefer the taking off eight cents, rather
than suffering the duty to remain as it stood at present; but he hoped
the whole duty would be taken off. One of the objections of the gentleman
to taking off the whole duty was, that the merchants who have imported
salt may be injured by it, and will not be able to compete with those who
have imported it duty free. But this argument operated two ways. Did it
not apply differently when the duty on salt was first laid? At that time,
the very man who now loses, gained in a correspondent ratio. To his mind,
Mr. R. said, it was the strangest reason on earth, if this nation were
in a situation to give up all its taxes, that it should be said by any
gentleman, don’t repeal the laws imposing them, because my constituents,
the merchants, have paid duties on some of them. If so, your taxes, so
far from being diminished, may go on increasing _ad infinitum_. But, the
truth is, we have the same right now to take off the duty on salt as our
predecessors had to lay it on.
But it seems that the original duty of twelve cents was put into pledge
for the payment of the national debt. We were told the same thing
five years ago when we proposed to repeal the internal taxes. They
were, however, repealed without any violation of the public faith, and
wherefore? The nation has contracted a debt to the public creditor, and
so long as the Government finds funds wherewith to pay it, the public
creditor has no right to ask whether we take it from our coat or breeches
pocket? whether from a land tax, an excise, or from duties on imported
articles? The pledge on our side is, to find money. If, after the repeal
of this duty, the ways and means for the payment of this debt are found
deficient, I agree that we are bound to make good the deficiency. But
what do we propose? The amount of the duty on salt is less than $600,000,
and at the same time that we take this off, we impose a duty which will
produce a million. We take off a duty on a necessary of life, which falls
peculiarly heavy on the poor, and on agriculture, and lay an _ad valorem_
duty on gauze, catgut, and the Lord knows what, which produces from three
to five thousand dollars more.
Mr. QUINCY asked whether a duty which produced $850,000 a year, which
was limited to the end of the next session, and which was not pledged to
the payment of the national debt, could be considered as equivalent to
a permanent duty of half a million, imposed by an act which could not
be repealed until the debt was paid? He did not think the new tax was a
substitute of equal value, and he considered it one of the objects of
this bill to get rid of the pledge to pay the debt.
Mr. J. CLAY felt disposed to give every credit to gentlemen in their
professions of regard towards the public debt. The answer to the
objection was this: A certain fund, arising from the impost, was
pledged to the payment and interest of the debt. An act had passed the
last Congress increasing the fund appropriated for this purpose, from
$7,200,000 to $8,000,000. If the duty on salt was not a component part
of this sum, the objection of gentlemen was futile. Now it was a fact,
that, so much as this sum was diminished by taking off the $520,000
arising from the duty on salt, so much was it increased by the other duty
proposed to be laid by this act. So long as the taxes pledged exceeded
eight millions, the Government sacredly regard their engagements. As
an answer to all the sensibility displayed by gentlemen for the public
faith, permit me, said Mr. C., to refer them to a resolution proposed
in the seventh Congress, on the 25th of January, 1802, instructing the
Committee of Ways and Means to inquire into the expediency of taking
off, or reducing, the duty on brown sugar, coffee, and bohea tea.
Another objection urged by gentlemen is, the effect of this bill on the
merchants. There is no doubt that, in consequence of it, the price of
salt will fall; but, would not this have been the effect on bohea tea,
had their measure been successful? The effect, however, will be gradual,
and there will be but little loss sustained by any one individual, as the
price will begin to fall immediately on taking off the duty. I believe
it is not a material error to say, that the traffic is pretty much in
the hands of those men who enjoyed it when the duty was laid; and if so,
those who now lose, will only lose as much as they before gained. I hope
the blank in the bill will be so filled as to give six months notice of
the imposition of the duty.
Mr. DANA said, that if gentlemen were disposed to diminish the revenue,
to screw up the Government, and if they were satisfied the Administration
could get along without this tax, it would weigh much in his mind in
favor of repeal; and, as they were disposed to grapple with difficulties
and gain popularity, he believed he would gratify them by voting for the
bill.
Mr. QUINCY said he opposed such an excessive reduction of this duty
at once, not only on the grounds he had stated, but on other grounds.
In Massachusetts, in the neighborhood of Boston, very extensive
manufactories of salt had been established, under the idea that the duty
would be continued. The immediate effect of this measure might be to
destroy and ruin them.
Mr. QUINCY’s motion to amend the section was likewise disagreed to
without a division.
On motion of Mr. J. RANDOLPH, the blank, relative to the time when the
duty was to take effect, was filled with the first day of October.
The third section was then read, which continued the Mediterranean fund
till the next session of Congress.
Mr. ALSTON observed that, from the present appearance of things, he did
not think it advisable that this section should remain as it was, as
in six or eight months they would have again the same ground to travel
over. His object was permanently to substitute the Mediterranean fund for
the salt tax. He had no objection to make the exchange; to take off the
perpetual tax on salt, and lay it on these articles. He thought there was
no danger in trusting to the wisdom of Congress the discontinuance of the
act imposing them; and that as long as there was a necessity for taxes,
these subjects of taxation were as unexceptionable as any that could be
laid. When they were about to strike so deeply at the revenue, they ought
to be certain that the substitute offered would justify the measure.
For these reasons he submitted a motion to make the Mediterranean fund
perpetual. He thought this expedient, as the tax on salt was perpetual,
and the substituted tax was not so certain as that on salt. With regard
to the one, very little variation could take place; while the other might
materially change with the times.
Mr. CROWNINSHIELD then moved to amend the last section, so as to continue
the Mediterranean fund for three years.
Mr. J. RANDOLPH hoped the amendment would not be agreed to. It would
be remembered that the right of giving the public money was the sole
exclusive right of that branch of the Legislature; and that when they
made grants for a long term of years, it would not depend on them alone
whether they should be revoked. In his opinion, if the Constitution of
the United States was practised on its true principles, that House ought
not to give the public money out of its control. There was no existing
cause for continuing this fund for three years, or for a longer period
than that contemplated by the bill.
The question was then taken on Mr. CROWNINSHIELD’s motion, which was
disagreed to--ayes 28. When the question was taken on engrossing the
bill, which was carried--ayes 83.
THURSDAY, April 17.
_Duties on Salt._
The bill repealing the acts laying duties on salt, and continuing in
force, for a further time, the first section of the act, entitled “An act
further to protect the commerce and seamen of the United States against
the Barbary Powers,” was read a third time.
Mr. MASTERS moved to recommit the bill, for the purpose of modifying its
details.
Mr. QUINCY supported the motion; which was lost--ayes 37, nays 49.
When the yeas and nays were taken on the passage of the bill--yeas 43,
nays 11, as follows:
YEAS.--Evan Alexander, Willis Alston, jun., Isaac Anderson,
Burwell Bassett, George M. Bedinger, John Blake, junior,
Thomas Blount, Robert Brown, Levi Casey, John Chandler, John
Claiborne, Christopher Clark, Joseph Clay, Matthew Clay, John
Clopton, Jacob Crowninshield, Richard Cutts, Samuel W. Dana,
Ezra Darby, John Davenport, junior, John Dawson, Elias Earle,
Peter Early, James Elliot, Caleb Ellis, Ebenezer Elmer, William
Ely, John W. Eppes, James Fisk, James M. Garnett, Charles
Goldsborough, Peterson Goodwyn, Edwin Gray, Andrew Gregg, Silas
Halsey, John Hamilton, David Holmes, David Hough, John G.
Jackson, John Lambert, Joseph Lewis, junior, Patrick Magruder,
Robert Marion, Thomas Moore, Jeremiah Morrow, John Morrow,
Jonathan O. Mosely, Jeremiah Nelson, Roger Nelson, Thomas
Newton, junior, Gideon Olin, Timothy Pitkin, junior, John Pugh,
Josiah Quincy, John Randolph, Thomas M. Randolph, John Rea of
Pennsylvania, Jacob Richards, Thomas Sammons, Thomas Sanford,
Martin G. Schuneman, James Sloan, John Smilie, John Smith,
Samuel Smith, Henry Southard, Richard Stanford, Joseph Stanton,
Samuel Taggart, Benjamin Tallmadge, Samuel Tenney, David
Thomas, Philip R. Thompson, Thomas W. Thompson, Abram Trigg,
Killian K. Van Rensselaer, Joseph B. Varnum, Peleg Wadsworth,
Robert Whitehill, David R. Williams, Marmaduke Williams,
Alexander Wilson, Richard Wynn, and Joseph Winston.
NAYS.--Joseph Barker, John Fowler, Isaiah L. Green, Michael
Leib, Matthew Lyon, Josiah Masters, William McCreery, Nicholas
R. Moore, John Russell, Peter Sailly, and Uri Tracy.
FRIDAY, April 18.
_William Eaton._
The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the bill
authorizing the settlement of accounts between the United States and
William Eaton. No amendment having been made to the bill, the House
proceeded to consider the said bill at the Clerk’s table, and the same
being again read, in the words following, to wit:
_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States in Congress assembled_, That the proper
accounting officers be, and they hereby are, authorized and
directed to liquidate and settle the accounts subsisting
between the United States and William Eaton, late Consul at
Tunis, upon just and equitable principles, under the direction
of the Secretary of State.
A motion was made by Mr. JOHN RANDOLPH, and the question being put, to
amend the said bill, by striking out, at the end thereof, the words
“under the direction of the Secretary of State;” it passed in the
negative--yeas 43, nays 48.
_Ordered_, That the said bill be engrossed, and read the third time on
Monday next.
MONDAY, April 21.
_Duties on Salt._
The House took up the amendments of the Senate to the bill repealing the
acts laying duties on salt, and continuing in force for a further time,
the first section of the act, entitled “An act further to protect the
commerce and seamen of the United States against the Barbary Powers.”
These amendments proposed striking out all the provisions of the bill
relative to the repeal of the duty on salt.
Mr. J. RANDOLPH.--I understand this House to have sent a bill to the
Senate repealing the existing duty on salt, and continuing for a further
time the tax imposing a duty of two and a half per cent. on articles
previously charged with ad valorem duties. The Senate have returned the
bill, retaining the supply we voted, as well as the tax proposed by
us to be repealed. I hope we shall not agree to their amendments, and
the reasons I shall offer will not be those drawn from expediency, but
from my idea of the constitutional powers of this, and the other branch
of the legislature--which is, that it is the sole and indisputable
prerogative of this House to grant the money of the people of the United
States. It is here only that a grant of money can originate. It is true
that the Senate have the power of amending money bills, but my idea of
the extent to which that power can go, according to the true spirit of
the constitution, is this: while the Senate may amend money bills to
facilitate the collection of duties, or in other respects, as to their
details, they do not possess the constitutional power of varying either
the quantum of tax proposed in this House, or the object on which it
may be levied. I hope the House will never consent to give up this
invaluable privilege of saying what supplies they will grant, and the
object on which they shall be levied. But, even supposing this objection
nugatory, I hope this House will not suffer itself to be trapped, on
the last day of the session, in agreeing to a grant it was never in
their contemplation to make. When we sent a bill to the other branch to
continue the Mediterranean duty, we sent at the same time, a bill to
repeal the duty on salt. The amendment from the Senate can be viewed in
no other light than as originating a money bill in the Senate. It goes to
originate a tax on salt. Such, in effect, will be the object and tendency
of the measure. Let us suppose, instead of sending to the Senate a bill
imposing a new tax, we had sent a simple bill to repeal this same tax
upon salt--could the Senate, by an amendment, rivet and continue the
Mediterranean fund? And if they could, would not that be originating
a money bill? I hope the House will disagree to the amendments of the
Senate.
Mr. ALSTON thought it would be advisable to accommodate with the Senate.
In order to obtain an accommodation, he should vote, in the first
instance, against the amendments of the Senate. On a conference, they may
agree to strike off the duty of eight cents on salt, and the next year,
when we shall better understand the ground on which we stand, the House
may be disposed still further to lessen the burden.
Mr. RHEA, of Tennessee.--I do not consider this bill as in the nature of
a bill originating revenue, but as one, on the contrary, detracting from
the revenue. I contend that the Senate have the power, at any time, to
say they will not consent to the repeal of a revenue law, else they are
a trifling, insignificant body. Are they not, as well as we, to judge
of the exigency of the country? This is not a question of expediency,
but of necessity. Though we are desirous of taking off the duty on salt,
such is the situation of the country, menaced with foreign danger, and
particularly with a war with Tunis, that the revenue ought not to be
diminished. For these reasons I shall concur in the amendment of the
Senate.
The yeas and nays were then taken on agreeing to the amendment of the
Senate--yeas 24, nays 56.
Mr. J. RANDOLPH.--I hope we shall now adhere to our disagreement to the
amendment of the Senate. I hope we shall not concur with the Senate,
under the idea of reducing the duty on salt from twenty to twelve cents.
Notwithstanding a fear entertained by some gentlemen of a deficiency in
the revenue, the House, by a vast majority, passed the bill repealing the
duty on salt. The Message of the President was referred to the Committee
of Ways and Means, and that committee made a report recommending the
taking off the duty on salt, and continuing the two and a half per cent.
duty. Every objection to the measure that now exists then existed, and
ought then to have been offered. We then sent to the other House a supply
of money--a tax yielding $900,000, with the probability of its amounting
the ensuing year to a million; in this same bill we proposed taking
off a tax, which does not yield $600,000; we therefore made a grant of
$400,000 annually. It is said that the amendment of the Senate does not
go to the imposition of a new tax, but that it continues the revenue as
it is. There is some plausibility, but no solidity in this remark. If
it goes to continue the revenue as it now is, where is the necessity of
continuing the duty of two and a half per cent.? It is therefore in fact
a new money bill. Let me urge one thing to the House. If we ever mean to
strike off the duty on salt, we must cling to the Mediterranean fund as
the lever to lift this load from the shoulders of the people. It will be
recollected that within five years we have taken off the internal taxes.
I am glad of it; for I fear it would not now be done. They produced
about $800,000, inclusive of the taxes which have expired, and $640,000
exclusive of them. But we have granted a supply of two and a half per
cent. duties, which yield, annually, from nine hundred thousand, to a
million dollars. This is a complete offset to the repeal of the internal
taxes. What we have lost by their repeal we have gained, with the
addition of one or two hundred thousand dollars beyond the sum we should
have received, had they been suffered to remain, and no addition been
made to the duties on imports and tonnage; and yet we hear of the growing
demands of the Government. But the growing demands of all Governments
are alike. Do gentlemen recollect the growing state of the nation? When
this Government was first put in motion, the duties on imports were not
more than four or five millions. These resources are daily growing, and a
fund accruing from the increasing prosperity of the people, which their
guardians are bound to account for. Though we have contracted a debt for
New Orleans, we have gained a revenue of not less than $300,000 a year.
From these circumstances I hope we shall adhere to our disagreement to
the amendments of the Senate, and that they will, in their justness and
graciousness, yield a tax of half a million for a tax which produces a
whole million.
It is said the Senate may strike out all but the title of your bills.
Indisputably; but will this House submit? Suppose you send a bill to
the Senate laying a duty of two per cent. on saltpetre, and they send
it back to you, striking out this provision, and giving you a bill in
lieu of it, laying a tax of four shillings in the pound on all the lands
of the United States. Is that, under the constitution, a fair exercise
of their power? To my mind, if the position be admitted, that it is the
sole privilege of this House to grant the public money, it is extremely
indecent, to say no more, for that branch of the Legislature to tell the
United States they will get all the money they can, whatever may be the
disposition of this House. Recollect how the salt tax was laid before--on
the last day of an expiring Congress, after a proposition to lay the tax
had been rejected, and members had gone home, under the persuasion that
no such attempt would be renewed. By some little modification of that
proposition, a tax of twenty cents was laid on every fifty-six pounds of
salt, and riveted on the people for ever. When I say for ever, I mean the
period of its being taken off depends on a branch of the Legislature over
which the people have but little control, who are the representatives,
not of the people, but of the State sovereignties. Now, if the House do
wish, as surely they must, to get rid of this tax, and if they believe,
as they must, that the present circumstances of the country admit of
its repeal, else the bill would not have passed by so large a majority,
I hope they will adhere to their disagreement to the amendments of the
Senate, and put it in the power of the other branch to take so much of
the public money as it is our pleasure to grant, and not one cent more.
Mr. CONRAD.--I hope we shall not adhere, but try a conference. It will
then be time enough to consider whether we will adhere. Anxious as I am
to get rid of this odious tax, I will agree to reduce the duty to twelve
cents, or keep the Mediterranean fund, and next session judge whether we
are able to take off the whole of it.
The motion to adhere was then disagreed to--yeas 36, nays 42. When the
House agreed to insist on their disagreement to the amendment of the
Senate, and appointed a committee of conference.
And then, on a motion, made and seconded, the House adjourned until half
past six o’clock, post meridian.
_Eodem Die, half-past 6 o’clock._
_Salt Duty._