BILL FOR THE RELIEF OF MRS. HARRISON, WIDOW OF THE LATE PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES.
Such was the title of the bill which was brought into the House of
Representatives for an indemnity, as it was explained to be, to the
family of the late President for his expenses in the presidential
election, and in removing to the seat of government. The bill itself
was in these words: "That the Secretary of the Treasury pay, out
of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to Mrs.
Harrison, widow of William Henry Harrison, late President of the
United States, or in the event of her death before payment, to the
legal representatives of the said William Henry Harrison, the sum
of $25,000." Mr. John Quincy Adams, as reporter of the bill from
the select committee to which had been referred that portion of
the President's message relating to the family of his predecessor,
explained the motives on which the bill had been founded; and said:
"That this sum ($25,000), as far as he understood, was in
correspondence with the prevailing sentiment of the joint
committee raised on this subject, and of which the gentleman now
in the chair had been a member. There had been some difference
of opinion among the members of the committee as to the sum
which it would be proper to appropriate, and, also, on the part
of one or two gentlemen as to the constitutionality of the
act itself in any shape. There had been more objection to the
constitutionality than there had been as to the sum proposed.
So far as there had been any discussion in the committee, it
seemed to be the general sense of those composing it, that
some provision ought to be made for the family of the late
President, not in the nature of a grant, but as an indemnity
for actual expenses incurred by himself first, when a candidate
for the presidency. It had been observed in the committee,
and it must be known to all members of the House, that, in
the situation in which General Harrison had been placed--far
from the seat of government, and for eighteen months or two
years, while a candidate for the presidency, exposed to a heavy
burden of expense which he could not possibly avoid--it was no
more than equitable that he should, to a reasonable degree, be
indemnified. He had been thus burdened while in circumstances
not opulent; but, on the contrary, it had been one ground on
which he had received so decided proof of the people's favor,
that through a long course of public service he remained poor,
which was in itself a demonstrative proof that he had remained
pure also. Such had been his condition before leaving home to
travel to the seat of government. After his arrival here, he
had been exposed to another considerable burden of expense,
far beyond any amount he had received from the public purse
during the short month he had continued to be President. His
decease had left his family in circumstances which would be
much improved by this act of justice done to him by the people,
through their representatives. The feeling was believed to be
very general throughout the country, and without distinction of
party, in favor of such a measure."
This bill, on account of its principle, gave rise to a vehement
opposition on the part of some members who believed they saw in
it a departure from the constitution, and the establishment of a
dangerous precedent. Mr. Payne, of Alabama, said:
"As he intended to vote against this proposition it was due to
himself to state the reasons which would actuate him. In doing
so he was not called to examine either the merits or demerits
of General Harrison. They had nothing to do with the question.
The question before the House was, not whether General Harrison
was or was not a meritorious individual, but whether that House
would make an appropriation to his widow and descendants. That
being the question, the first inquiry was, had the House a
right to vote this money, and, if they had, was it proper to
do so? Mr. P. was one of those who believed that Congress had
no constitutional right to appropriate the public money for
such an object. He quoted the language of the constitution,
and then inquired whether this was an appropriation to pay the
debts of the Union, to secure the common defence, or to promote
the general welfare? He denied that precedents ever ought to
be considered as settling a constitutional question. If they
could, then the people had no remedy. It was not pretended that
this money was to be given as a reward for General Harrison's
public services, but to reimburse him for the expense of an
electioneering campaign. This was infinitely worse."
Mr. Gilmer, of Virginia, said:
"When he had yesterday moved for the rising of the committee,
he had not proposed to himself to occupy much of the time of
the House in debate, nor was such his purpose at present. With
every disposition to vote for this bill, he had then felt,
and he still felt, himself unable to give it his sanction,
and that for reasons which had been advanced by many of the
advocates in its favor. This was not a place to indulge feeling
and sympathy: if it were, he presumed there would be but one
sentiment throughout that House and throughout the country,
and that would be in favor of the bill. If this were an act of
generosity, if the object were to vote a bounty, a gratuity,
to the widow or relatives of the late President, it seemed to
Mr. G. that they ought not to vote it in the representative
capacity, out of the public funds, but privately from their
own personal resources. They had no right to be generous with
the money of the people. Gentlemen might bestow as much out of
their own purses as they pleased; but they were here as trustees
for the property of others, and no public agent was at liberty
to disregard the trust confided to him under the theory of our
government. It was quite needless here to attempt an eulogy on
the character of the illustrious dead: history has done and
would hereafter do ample justice to the civil and military
character of William Henry Harrison. The result of the recent
election, a result unparalleled in the annals of this country,
spoke the sentiment of the nation in regard to his merits, while
the drapery of death which shrouded the legislative halls, the
general gloom which overspread the nation, spoke that sentiment
in accents mournfully impressive. But those rhapsodies in which
gentlemen had indulged, might, he thought, better be deferred
for some Fourth of July oration, or at least reserved for other
theatres than this. They had come up here not to be generous,
but to be just. His object now was to inquire whether they could
not place this bill on the basis of indisputable justice, so
that it might not be carried by a mere partial vote, but might
conciliate the support of gentlemen of all parties, and from
every quarter of the Union. He wished, if possible, to see the
whole House united, so as to give to their act the undivided
weight of public sentiment. Mr. G. said he could not bow to the
authority of precedent; he should ever act under the light of
the circumstances which surrounded him. His wish was, not to
furnish an evil precedent to others by his example. He thought
the House in some danger of setting one of that character; a
precedent which might hereafter be strained and tortured to
apply to cases of a very different kind, and objects of a widely
different character. He called upon the advocates of the bill
to enable all the members of the House, or as nearly all as
was practicable (for, after what had transpired yesterday, he
confessed his despair of seeing the House entirely united), to
agree in voting for the bill."
There was an impatient majority in the House in favor of the
passage of the bill, and to that impatience Mr. Gilmer referred as
making despair of any unanimity in the House, or of any considerate
deliberation. The circumstances were entirely averse to any such
deliberation--a victorious party, come into power after a most
heated election, seeing their elected candidate dying on the
threshold of his administration, poor, and beloved: it was a case
for feeling more than of judgment, especially with the political
friends of the deceased--but few of whom could follow the counsels
of the head against the impulsions of the heart. Amongst these few
Mr. Gilmer was one, and Mr. Underwood of Kentucky, another; who said:
"His heart was on one side and his judgment upon the other. If
this was a new case, he might be led away by his heart; but as
he had heretofore, in his judgment, opposed all such claims he
should do so now. He gave his reasons thus at large, because
a gentleman from Indiana, on the other side of the House,
denounced those who should vote against the bill. He objected,
because it was retroactive in its provisions, and because it
called into existence legislative discretion, and applied it to
past cases--because it provided for the widow of a President
for services rendered by her husband while in office, thus
increasing the President's compensation after his death. If it
applied to the widow of the President, it applied to the widows
of military officers. He considered if this bill passed, that
Mr. Jefferson's heirs might with equal propriety claim the same
compensation."
If the House had been in any condition for considerate legislation
there was an amendment proposed by Mr. Gordon of New York, which
might have brought it forth. He proposed an indemnity equal to the
amount of one quarter's salary, $6,250. He proposed it, but got but
little support for his proposition, the majority calling for the
question, and some declaring themselves for $50,000, and some for
$100,000. The vote was taken, and showed 66 negatives, comprehending
the members who were best known to the country as favorable to
a strict construction of the constitution, and an economical
administration of the government. The negatives were:
Archibald H. Arrington, Charles G. Atherton, Linn Banks, Henry
W. Beeson, Linn Boyd, David P. Brewster, Aaron V. Brown, Charles
Brown, Edmund Burke, William O. Butler, Green W. Caldwell,
Patrick C. Caldwell, John Campbell, George B. Cary, Reuben
Chapman, Nathan Clifford, James G. Clinton, Walter Coles,
John R. J. Daniel, Richard D. Davis, William Doan, Andrew W.
Doig, Ira A. Eastman, John C. Edwards, Joseph Egbert, John G.
Floyd, Charles A. Floyd, James Gerry, William O. Goode, Samuel
Gordon, Amos Gustine, William A. Harris, Samuel L. Hays, George
W. Hopkins, Jacob Houck, jr., Edmund W. Hubard, Robert M. T.
Hunter, Cave Johnson, John W. Jones, George M. Keim, Andrew
Kennedy, Joshua A. Lowell, Abraham McClellan, Robert McClellan,
James J. McKay, Albert G. Marchand, Alfred Marshall, John
Thompson Mason, James Mathews, William Medill, John Miller,
Peter Newhard, William W. Payne, Francis W. Pickens, Arnold
Plumer, John R. Reding, James Rogers, Romulus M. Saunders,
Tristram Shaw, John Snyder, Lewis Steenrod, Hopkins L. Turney,
Joseph R. Underwood, Harvey M. Watterson, John B. Weller, James
W. Williams.
Carried to the Senate for its concurrence, the bill continued to
receive there a determined opposition from a considerable minority.
Mr. Calhoun said:
"He believed no government on earth leaned more than ours
towards all the corruptions of an enormous pension list. Not
even the aristocratic government of Great Britain has a stronger
tendency to it than this government. This is no new thing.
It was foreseen from the beginning, and the great struggle
then was, to keep out the entering wedge. He recollected very
well, when he was at the head of the War Department, and the
military pension bill passed, that while it was under debate,
it was urged as a very small matter--only an appropriation of
something like $150,000 to poor and meritorious soldiers of the
Revolution, who would not long remain a burden on the Treasury.
Small as the sum was, and indisputable as were the merits of
the claimants, it was with great difficulty the bill passed.
Why was this difficulty--this hesitation on such an apparently
irresistible claim? Because it was wisely argued, and with a
spirit of prophecy since fulfilled, that it would prove an
entering wedge, which, once admitted, would soon rend the pillar
of democracy. And what has been the result of that trifling
grant? It is to be found in the enormous pension list of this
government at the present day.
"He asked to have any part of the Constitution pointed out in
which there was authority for making such an appropriation as
this. If the authority exists in the Constitution at all, it
exists to a much greater extent than has yet been acted upon,
and it is time to have the fact known. If the Constitution
authorizes Congress to make such an appropriation as this for
a President of the United States, it surely authorizes it to
make an appropriation of like nature for a doorkeeper of the
Senate of the United States, or for any other officer of the
government. There can be no distinction drawn. Pass this act,
and the precedent is established for the family of every civil
officer in the government to be placed on the pension list. Is
not this the consummation of the tendency so long combated?
But the struggle is in vain--there is not, he would repeat, a
government on the face of the earth, in which there is such a
tendency to all the corruptions of an aristocratic pension list
as there is in this."
Mr. Woodbury said:
"This was the first instance within his (Mr. W.'s) knowledge,
of an application to pension a civil officer being likely to
succeed; and a dangerous innovation, he felt convinced, it would
prove. Any civil officer, by the mere act of taking possession
of his office for a month, ought to get his salary for a year,
on the reasoning adopted by the senator from Delaware, though
only performing a month's service. If that can be shown to be
right, he (Mr. W.) would go for this, and all bills of the kind.
But it must first be shown satisfactorily. If this lady was
really poor, there would be some plea for sympathy, at least.
But he could point to hundreds who have that claim, and not on
account of civil, but military service, who yet have obtained
no such grant, and never will. He could point to others in
the civil service, who had gone to great expense in taking
possession of office and then died, but no claim of this kind
was encouraged, though their widows were left in most abject
poverty. All analogy in civil cases was against going beyond the
death of the incumbent in allowing either salary or gratuity."
Mr. Pierce said:
"Without any feelings adverse to this claim, political or
otherwise, he protested against any legislation based upon our
_sympathies_--he protested against the power and dominion of
that '_inward arbiter_,' which in private life was almost sure
to lead us right; but, as public men, and as the dispensers of
other men's means--other men's contributions--was quite as sure
to lead us wrong. It made a vast difference whether we paid the
money from our own pockets, or drew it from the pockets of our
constituents. He knew his weakness on this point, _personally_,
but it would be his steady purpose, in spite of taunts and
unworthy imputations, to escape from it, as the representative
of others. But he was departing from the object which induced
him, for a moment, to trespass upon the patience of the Senate.
This claim did not come from the family. No gentleman understood
on what ground it was placed. The indigence of the family had
not even been urged: he believed they were not only in easy
circumstances, but affluent. It was not for loss of limb,
property, or life, in the military service. If for any thing
legitimate, in any sense, or by any construction, it was for the
civil services of the husband; and, in this respect, was a broad
and dangerous precedent."
In saying that the claim did not come from the family of General
Harrison, Mr. Pierce spoke the words which all knew to be true.
Where then did it come from? It came, as was well known at the time,
from persons who had advanced moneys to the amount of about $22,000,
for the purposes mentioned in the bill; and who had a claim upon the
estate to that amount.
Mr. Benton moved to recommit the bill with instructions to prefix
a preamble, or insert an amendment showing upon what ground the
grant was motived. The bill itself showed no grounds for the grant.
It was, on its face, a simple legislative donation of money to a
lady, describing her as the widow of the late President; but in
no way connecting either herself, or her deceased husband, with
any act or fact as the alleged ground of the grant. The grant is
without consideration: the donee is merely described, to prevent
the donation from going to a wrong person. It was to go to Mrs.
Harrison. What Mrs. Harrison? Why, the widow of the late President
Harrison. This was descriptive, and sufficiently descriptive; for
it would carry the money to the right person. But why carry it?
That was the question which the bill had not answered; for there is
nothing in the mere fact of being the widow of a President which
could entitle the widow to a sum of public money. This was felt
by the reporter of the bill, and endeavored to be supplied by an
explanation, that it was not a "grant" but an "indemnity;" and an
indemnity for "actual expenses incurred when he was a candidate for
the presidency;" and for expenses incurred after his "arrival at
the seat of government;" and as "some provision for his family;"
and because he was "poor." Now why not put these reasons into the
bill? Was the omission oversight, or design? If oversight, it should
be corrected; if design, it should be thwarted. The law should be
complete in itself. It cannot be helped out by a member's speech.
It was not oversight which caused the omission. The member who
reported the bill is not a man to commit oversights. It was design!
and because such reasons could not be put on the face of the bill!
could not be voted upon by yeas and nays! and therefore must be left
blank, that every member may vote upon what reasons he pleases,
without being committed to any. This is not the way to legislate;
and, therefore, the author of this View moved the re-commitment,
with instructions to put a reason on the face of the bill itself,
either in the shape of a preamble, or of an amendment--leaving the
selection of the reasons to the friends of the bill, who constituted
the committee to which it would be sent. Mr. Calhoun supported the
motion for re-commitment, and said:
"Is it an unreasonable request to ask the committee for a
specific report of the grounds on which they have recommended
this appropriation? No; and the gentlemen know it is not
unreasonable; but they will oppose it not on that account; they
will oppose it because they know such a report would defeat
their bill. It could not be sustained in the face of their own
report. Not that there would be no ground assumed, but because
those who now support the bill do so on grounds as different
as any possibly can be; and, if the committee was fastened down
to one ground, those who support the others would desert the
standard."
The vote was taken on the question, and negatived. The yeas were:
Messrs. Allen, Benton, Calhoun, Clay of Alabama, Fulton, King of
Alabama, Linn, McRoberts, Pierce, Sevier Smith of Connecticut,
Tappan, Williams of Maine, Woodbury, Wright, Young of Illinois. To
the argument founded on the alleged poverty of General Harrison, Mr.
Benton replied:
"Look at the case of Mr. Jefferson, a man than whom no one
that ever existed on God's earth were the human family more
indebted to. His furniture and his estate were sold to satisfy
his creditors. His posterity was driven from house and home,
and his bones now lay in soil owned by a stranger. His family
are scattered; some of his descendants are married in foreign
lands. Look at Monroe--the amiable, the patriotic Monroe, whose
services were revolutionary, whose blood was spilt in the war
of Independence, whose life was worn out in civil service, and
whose estate has been sold for debt, his family scattered, and
his daughter buried in a foreign land. Look at Madison, the
model of every virtue, public or private, and he would only
mention in connection with this subject, his love of order, his
economy, and his systematic regularity in all his habits of
business. He, when his term of eight years had expired, sent a
letter to a gentleman (a son of whom is now upon this floor)
[Mr. PRESTON], enclosing a note for five thousand dollars,
which he requested him to endorse, and raise the money in
Virginia, so as to enable him to leave this city, and return
to his modest retreat--his patrimonial inheritance--in that
State. General Jackson drew upon the consignee of his cotton
crop in New Orleans for six thousand dollars to enable him to
leave the seat of government without leaving creditors behind
him. These were honored leaders of the republican party. They
had all been Presidents. They had made great sacrifices, and
left the presidency deeply embarrassed; and yet the republican
party who had the power and the strongest disposition to
relieve their necessities, felt they had no right to do so by
appropriating money from the public Treasury. Democracy would
not do this. It was left for the era of federal rule and federal
supremacy--who are now rushing the country with steam power into
all the abuses and corruptions of a monarchy, with its pensioned
aristocracy--and to entail upon the country a civil pension list.
"To the argument founded on the expense of removing to the seat
of government, Mr. Benton replied that there was something in
it, and if the bill was limited to indemnity for that expense,
and a rule given to go by in all cases, it might find claims
to a serious consideration. Such a bill would have principle
and reason in it--the same principle and the same reason which
allows mileage to a member going to and returning from Congress.
The member was supposed during that time to be in the public
service (he was certainly out of his own service): he was at
expense: and for these reasons he was allowed a compensation
for his journeys. But, it was by a uniform rule, applicable
to all members, and the same at each session. The same reason
and principle with foreign ministers. They received an out-fit
before they left home, and an in-fit to return upon. A quarter's
salary, was the in-fit: the out-fit was a year's salary, because
it included the expense of setting up a house after the minister
arrived at his post. The President finds a furnished house on
his arrival at the seat of government, so that the principle
and reason of the case would not give to him, as to a minister
to a foreign court, a full year's salary. The in-fit would be
the proper measure; and that rule applied to the coming of the
President elect, and to his going when he retires, would give
him $6,250 on each occasion. For such an allowance he felt
perfectly clear that he could vote as an act of justice; and
nearly as clear that he could do it constitutionally. But it
would have to be for a general and permanent act."
The bill was passed by a bare quorum, 28 affirmatives out of 52. The
negatives were 16: so that 18 senators--being a greater number than
voted against the bill--were either absent, or avoided the vote. The
absentees were considered mostly of that class who were willing to
see the bill pass, but not able to vote for it themselves. The yeas
and nays were:
YEAS--Messrs. Barrow, Bates, Bayard, Berrien, Buchanan, Choate,
Clay of Kentucky, Clayton, Dixon, Evans, Graham, Huntington,
Mangum, Merrick, Miller, Morehead, Phelps, Porter, Prentiss,
Preston, Rives, Simmons, Smith of Indiana, Southard, Tallmadge,
Walker, White, Woodbridge.
NAYS--Messrs. Allen, Benton, Calhoun, Clay of Alabama, Fulton,
King, Linn, McRoberts, Nicholson, Sevier, Smith of Connecticut,
Surgeon, Tappan, Williams, Woodbury, Wright, Young.
It was strenuously opposed by the stanch members of the democratic
party, and elaborately resisted in a speech from the writer of this
View--of which an extract is given in the next chapter.