ON THE LOSS OF THE FORTIFICATION BILL IN 1835.

A SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, ON THE 14TH OF

JANUARY, 1836, ON MR. BENTON'S RESOLUTIONS FOR APPROPRIATING THE SURPLUS

REVENUE TO NATIONAL DEFENCE.

It is not my purpose, Mr. President, to make any remark on the state of

our affairs with France. The time for that discussion has not come, and

I wait. We are in daily expectation of a communication from the

President, which will give us light; and we are authorized to expect a

recommendation by him of such measures as he thinks it may be necessary

and proper for Congress to adopt. I do not anticipate him. In this most

important and delicate business, it is the proper duty of the executive

to go forward, and I, for one, do not intend either to be drawn or

driven into the lead. When official information shall be before us, and

when measures shall be recommended upon the proper responsibility, I

shall endeavor to form the best judgment I can, and shall act according

to its dictates.

I rise, now, for another purpose. This resolution has drawn on a debate

upon the general conduct of the Senate during the last session of

Congress, and especially in regard to the proposed grant of the three

millions to the President on the last night of the session. My main

object is to tell the story of this transaction, and to exhibit the

conduct of the Senate fairly to the public view. I owe this duty to the

Senate. I owe it to the committee with which I am connected; and

although whatever is personal to an individual is generally of too

little importance to be made the subject of much remark, I hope I may be

permitted to say a few words in defence of my own reputation, in

reference to a matter which has been greatly misrepresented.

This vote for the three millions was proposed by the House of

Representatives as an amendment to the fortification bill; and the loss

of that bill, three millions and all, is the charge which has been made

upon the Senate, sounded over all the land, and now again renewed. I

propose to give the true history of this bill, its origin, its progress,

and its loss.

Before attempting that, however, let me remark, for it is worthy to be

remarked and remembered, that the business brought before the Senate

last session, important and various as it was, and both public and

private, was all gone through with most uncommon despatch and

promptitude. No session has witnessed a more complete clearing off and

finishing of the subjects before us. The communications from the other

house, whether bills or whatever else, were especially attended to in a

proper season, and with that ready respect which is due from one house

to the other. I recollect nothing of any importance which came to us

from the House of Representatives, which was neglected, overlooked, or

disregarded by the Senate.

On the other hand, it was the misfortune of the Senate, and, as I think,

the misfortune of the country, that, owing to the state of business in

the House of Representatives towards the close of the session, several

measures which had been matured in the Senate, and passed into bills,

did not receive attention, so as to be either agreed to or rejected, in

the other branch of the legislature. They fell, of course, by the

termination of the session.

The Great Speeches and Orations of Daniel Webster With an Essay on Daniel Webster as a Master of English Style · 第 118 / 210 题