OF THE DEBATES OF CONGRESS, FROM 1789 TO 1856. FROM GALES AND SEATON'S ANNALS OF CONGRESS; FROM THEIR REPORTED DEBATES, BY JOHN C. RIVES. BY THE AUTHOR OF THE THIRTY YEARS' VIEW. VOL. X. NEW YORK: D. APPLETON & COMPANY, 346 & 348 BROADWAY. 1859. 53854. 5-+-4 HARVARD LIBRARY 1861. Jan. 12 Unay Fund. ENTERED according to Act of Congress, in the year 1856, by D. APPLETON AND COMPANY, in the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the Southern District of New York. 2679 49-27 3-9 TWENTIETH CONGRESS.-FIRST SESSION. PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. CONTINUED FROM VOL. IX. MONDAY, February 11, 1828. Militia Courts Martial. the printer to do with it beyond putting it into type? that which was before the House is chiroAf-graphy. Why then should it be stated that The report of the Committee on Military fairs, [made this day,] on the subject of the documents in this case, being under considerationMr. HAMILTON offered the following resolu tion: Resolved, That the report of the Committee on Military Affairs, made to this House, on certain documents communicated by the Department of War, touching the proceedings of a court martial which convened at Mobile on the 5th December, 1814, and a correspondence between the Secretary of War and Governor Blount, respecting certain drafts of the Militia of the State of Tennessee, be printed with said documents, which have been previously ordered to be printed by this House. Mr. DRAYTON moved to amend the resolution, by adding these words: "And that the documents heretofore ordered to be printed, shall, when printed, be appended to said report, in the order in which they have been arranged by the committee." Mr. HAMILTON accepted the amendment. Mr. BURGES said, that, by way of apology that the order of the House had not been complied with, it had been said that it was one of the high privileges of a committee of Congress, to say when and how documents are to be printed. He denied that. He denied that when the House had said certain papers are to be printed, a committee, or a member of a committee, may put them in their pockets, and prevent them from being printed. If such a doctrine were to prevail, a committee might put documents in their pockets and keep them there until the end of the session. The mode of printing had been indicated by the order of the House. This is not merely a conflict between the privileges of a committee and of the printer. What had this is a conflict between the privileges of a committee and the printer? With all due deference, the House had a right to examine the documents at the same time as the committee. He knew not why the committee had claimed the privilege of giving their opinions, when they were not asked for. When documents were ordered to be printed, it was not the usual way to retain them from the clerk, so that he could have no opportunity-should not be able to send them to the printer-but they had been uniformly sent to the clerk, and from him to the printer. It was now perfectly clear that it was the object of the committee that the people should not have the documents without a glossary to accompany them. The Secretary of War had been precluded from giving any opinion. It was then the wish of the gentlemen that the facts should go forth to the people without any commentary. Now, the same gentlemen seem to fear lest the people should have the facts without a commentary. It is intended to insinuate that the people have so little knowledge that they would not be able to understand the documents if they were presented to them by themselves. He was astonished to hear such a doctrine asserted. He did not know with what kind of people the gentleman from South Carolina was acquainted; but those of the people with whom he was himself acquainted, he could assure the gentleman, want no glossary or commentary to serve as a guide to their understandings. This mode of accompanying the documents with a glossary might have a very different effect from keeping the people from committing errors of opinion. He asked what friend there was of General Jackson who would come forward and say that [FEBRUARY, 1828. negative, rather than be instrumental in producing another protracted party debate. The Committee on Military Affairs have been, in my opinion, unjustly censured, because they took possession of the documents before they were printed. But was not the order of the House to refer, equally powerful with the the naked truth shall not go forth until his friends | had prepared a commentary to accompany it? He was astonished that any gentleman could advance the doctrine here, that papers must, of necessity, go to the world with a commentary and argument to each this fellow-citizens how to understand the record. He prayed that members of the House, who had been nearly a fortnight wait-order to print? The committee had at least as ing for these papers to be printed, might have the privilege of having these documents before them. He admitted that the argument of the committee was ingenious The SPEAKER reminded the gentleman from Rhode Island, that it was not in order to discuss the merits of the report on a question to print. Mr. BURGES said he was not about to go into the merits. He would say the report had no merits. He wished to have the testimony without the commentary; and he prayed that the order already made by the House should be complied with. The SPEAKER stated, that when the order of the House was made to refer the documents and print them, he had submitted the papers to the chairman of the committee, a course which he thought perfectly proper. Mr. DRAYTON referred to the course pursued at the last session, as to the documents connected with the dispute between the U. States and the State of Georgia. A motion was then made, by the chairman of the committee, that all the documents should be appended to the report of the committee, and they were so appended. The committee of which he was a member, had, in the course of their investigation, found it necessary to examine a mass of documents, some of which were only to be obtained from the Indian Department, and all these were appended to their report. There was nothing novel, therefore, in this proposition. Mr. BUCHANAN said: I rise to express a sincere hope that the House may promptly decide this question. I fear, from the course which the debate has taken, that we may again find ourselves involved in a political contest. I call upon those gentlemen upon this floor, if there be any such, with whom my opinion has any influence, to avoid making this a party question. The House have already wasted sufficient time upon questions of that character. We have already withdrawn ourselves long enough from the public business of the nation, for the purpose of attending to the politics of the day. What is the true, the intrinsic nature of the question now before the House? It is simply this: Shall the documents be printed with, or without, the report of the committee? What possible difficulty can arise in answering this question? No gentleman has objected to printing the report. Whether the documents shall be attached to the report or not, both will be read by the people of the United States. Then why detach them from each other? Let them go together. The question, however, is one of so trifling a character, that I should vote in the much right to the possession of these documents, as the printer. One gentleman may have wished that the printing might be the first step, while another desired that the reference might have the precedence. How, then, are the committee censurable? If the printing had been delayed too long, the House could and would have exercised a control over their committee. If the House had wished the documents to be printed, without the commentary of the committee, they ought to have passed an order for printing simply. But at the same time that we ordered the printing, we sent the documents to the committee. For what purpose? Certainly that we might obtain their report: and now the only question is, whether the documents, and the report upon them, shall be printed together, or separately? I shall vote that the commentary shall accompany the text; but yet I think it a matter of very little importance. The only change which the committee have made in the order of the letters, is to place them in the order of their dates, and make the answer follow the letter to which it is a reply. No gentleman can wish to see the answer placed before the letter which gave birth to it. Mr. B. again expressed a hope that this might not become a party question, and produce a party debate. Mr. TAYLOR, in reply to the question which had been asked, as to what difference it made how the documents were printed, said that there were two distinct series of printing: one of which embraces Executive documents, and the other Reports of Committees. At a future day, when this information should be sought for, the Executive documents would naturally be looked to. Should it be transferred to Reports of Committees, it would not be in its natural place. It does not now come before us as from the Executive Departments at all. The House had ordered that it should be printed as an Executive document, and as such it ought to be printed. Precedents had been referred to. One gentleman had referred to the case of the Vice President. In that case, the documents were matters collected as evidence, and formed a part of the report. This is a very different matter. If the Department has presented these documents in a manner to impose on the people, the committee might cast a censure on the Department; but the House owes it to the Department to print the information as it has been received. He thought it high time that we should proceed with the public business. He had come to the House this day in that ex pectation. Unless we violate all the rules and The question being then-" Shall the main question be now put?" It was decided in the affirmative-ayes 105, noes 75. The question was then taken, on the passage of the resolution, and agreed to-ayes 108, noes 69. TUESDAY, February 12. Navy Appropriations and Expenses. On motion of Mr. McDUFFIE, the House went into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, Mr. CONDICT in the chair, and took up the bill making appropriations for the Naval service for the year 1828. The bill was read through, and then taken up by sections; and the clause of appropriation for the pay and subsistence being under consideration [H. OF R. stricting the appropriations for their pay and subsistence. He expressed his willingness to increase the number of officers so far as might be necessary for vessels actually in commission, but was opposed to increasing the number of those waiting for orders. The Navy now cost about one-seventh of the whole expenditure of the Government. That arm of the Government was at present highly popular; but would not continue to be so if it were suffered to grow too expensive. Mr. H. concluded by stating that he was unable to designate what particular sum should be substituted for that now in the bill, as he had not received the necessary data for that purpose from the Navy Department. Mr. TAYLOR congratulated the House that this subject had received the attention of the Naval Committee. He deprecated the omission, on the part of Congress, heretofore, to fix the number of naval officers, as it had done that of the officers of the Army. He thought it highly improper that their number should be left discretionary with the Executive branch of the Government, and pressed upon the Naval Committee the propriety of bringing in a bill fixing the Navy Peace Establishment. Mr. HOFFMAN, Chairman of the Committee of Naval Affairs, requested Mr. McDUFFIE, Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, who had reported the bill, to state to Mr. MCDUFFIE sent to the Clerk's table a letthe House what was the increase in the num-ter from the Secretary of the Navy, explaining ber of officers in the estimates of the present in detail the estimates from that Department year, over the number of officers in the esti- for the present year. mates of last year. Mr. McDUFFIE replied, that he had imperfectly understood the gentleman from New York, but would state, in reply to what he had understood to be his question, that the increase in amount for this item was about $20,000; which difference grew out of the increased number of officers. Mr. WILLIAMS inquired of Mr. HOFFMAN, whether he considered the total number of officers, proposed to be employed, as too great in proportion to the services proposed to be performed, and whether the whole number was any greater than was requisite for that service which was authorized by law. crease in the service, which Mr. H. did not think necessary. Mr. HOFFMAN replied, that the number would Mr. HOFFMAN then went into a lengthy de- be far too small if all the vessels in the Navy tailed statement, in which he compared the were actually in commission, but not more than estimates of this year and the last, as they ap- half our vessels were in actual service; and, in plied to each grade of officers. The number of reply to the other question, he said, that if the Captains, in 1827, was 27; for this year, 32. estimates of last year were to be taken as a Those in commission in 1827, were 8; those standard of judgment, the number of officers for this year, 9. Captains waiting orders last proposed for the present year was too great in year, were 9; this year, 13. Lieutenants wait-proportion. The estimate contemplated an ining orders last year, were 83; those waiting orders this year, 111. Surgeons, two more this year than last-12 waiting for orders. Surgeons' mates were increased from 28 to 32; waiting orders last year, none; this year, 11. Pursers increased from 21 to 23-4 waiting orders last year; 8 this year. Midshipmen waiting orders last year, 20; this year, 85. He summed up the increase for the present year as follows: 5 Captains, 1 Commandant, 55 Lieutenants, 17 Surgeons, 14 Surgeons' mates, 6 Pursers, 3 Chaplains, and 156 Midshipmen. After stating the reasons given by the Secretary for this increase, Mr. H. insisted, that, if any alterations were to be introduced in the management of the Navy, those changes could be more easily effected if the number of officers was few than many. The only limit to the number of appointments was in the re After some explanations from Mr. TAYLOR, Mr. HOFFMAN continued his speech, and opposed the expediency of fixing a Peace Establishment, thinking it better that the number of officers should be regulated, from year to year, according to the contingencies of the service. He was opposed to every thing like a sinecure office. He would pay the officers liberally when in actual service; but not retain large numbers of them, upon salary, waiting orders. Mr. STORRS (who was last year Chairman of the Naval Committee) went into an explanation of the causes which had led to an increase in the extent and expenses of the Navy. He insisted that the expenditure was economical, having been more than made up by the value of our commerce which it had protected. The |