Page images
PDF
EPUB

which the latter

says:

“One of the highest powers which attaches to the executive, is that of appointment; over its exercise is accordingly thrown, and wisely thrown, the check of concurrence by the senate. Now, sir, doubts do exist, whether the vacancy in the missions to London and Paris did not originally occur during the recess of the senate. Secondly, whether the vacancy does not still exist; and thirdly, whether it ought now to be filled without a consultation with the senate."

These explanations, however, did not satisfy the opposition. They saw a secret design in holding back the appointment. If he wished to bring the president back to a constitutional practice of appointment, why did he not object at the time to receiving the appointment during the recess? If he did not desire it to be kept back for some special purpose, why did he employ the agency of Mr. Ritchie, through which the promise of the office had been kept alive? And why was the nomination withheld until near the close of the session ? It was insinuated that the president had a certain design to accomplish, which required the services of Mr. Stevenson in congress during another session; of which a sufficient explanation was furnished by the cast given to certain important committees, and the dissatisfaction excited in the discharge of the ordinary duties of presiding officer of the house. He had resigned the speaker's chair the last of May. The customary resolution of thanks was not moved until near the close of the session, when it received unusual opposition. It was adopted by 97 ayes to 49 noes.

On the resignation of Mr. Stevenson, John Bell, of Tennessee, was chosen speaker, on the tenth ballot. He received 114 votes; James K. Polk, 78; scattering and blanks, 26. Mr. Bell was one of those members who, though friendly to the administration, was opposed to the claims of Mr. Van Buren for the presidency; and was elected by a union of that branch of the party with the opposition.

The committee on finance, in the senate, who had been instructed, at the preceding session, to investigate the affairs and conduct of the bank of the United States during the recess, made a very voluminous report on the subject, on the 18th of December, 1834. Mr. Webster, the chairman, not having acted with the committee, the report was drawn up by Mr. Tyler. The subjects upon which they reported, were, the alleged violation of the charter of the bank; the safety of the public deposits; the management of the bank; the French bill; intermeddling with politics ; rewarding editors; &c., &c. The report, as was generally expected, was in the main favorable to the bank. It conveys, however, some censure for having expended too much in the printing and distribution of speeches and pamphlets. While the committee approved the regulation authorizing the bank to pay for publications “necessary for a

[ocr errors]

true exposition of its condition, or to defend itself against unjust or injurious accusations," they gave it as their decided opinion, that this expense for printing had for the last few years been unnecessarily increased. The information would have reached the people through the ordinary channels of communication; and the attitude of the bank would have lost nothing in the public estimation by the practice of more reserve.

The committee also disapproved the practice which had grown up under the resolution of March 11, 1831, which authorized the president of the bank, by the circulation of documents and papers, “to communicate to the people information in regard to the nature and operations of the bank.” Expenditures had been made under it, resting on the orders of the president, without vouchers or defined purpose.

The necessity or importance of this investigation was much doubted. As a measure of party policy, its expediency was perbaps still more questionable. Whether justly or unjustly, the bank was growing into disfavor; and occasion was taken by its opponents to impute to the authors of this investigation the design of attempting to retrieve the popularity of the institution. Hence the committee became known by the name of the “white-washing committee."

A bill to regulate the deposits in the state banks, had passed the house at the session of 1833–34, a few days before its close. It was taken up in the senate on the last day of the session, and laid on the table. At an early day of the next session, a similar bill was reported in the house by Mr. Polk, which was discussed until the 13th of Feb. ruary; after which no farther action appears from the journal to have been taken upon it.

In the senate, Mr. Calhoun, from a select committee on executive patronage, on the 9th of February, also reported, among other things, a bill to regulate the deposits of the public money, which passed the senate, 28 to 12. All the senators who voted in the negative, except two or three, were political friends of the president. Their opposition to the bill, however, was chiefly owing, it is believed, not to making deposits in the banks, but to the terms and conditions upon which they were to be made. Depositing in these banks had from the beginning been recommended by the president as his favorite measure; from which fact, the selected banks came to be called the “pet banks."

In the discussion of the bill in the house, was suggested the plan of what was afterwards called the “sub-treasury." It was similar to the present established system. It was moved by Mr. Gordon, of Virginia, as an amendment, and proposed the appointment of agents of the treasurer of the United States, to keep and disburse the revenue, giving

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

bonds for the faithful execution of their office. It proposed also, that the whole revenue from customs, lands, and other sources, should be paid in current coin of the United States. It was treated as a whig or opposition measure, from its having received a majority of its votes from members of that party, and disaffected democrats—most of them, it is believed, the latter. Mr. Gordon had been a Jackson man, and probably was still a supporter of the measures of the administration generally. He was opposed to the United States bank as unconstitutional and dangerous, and had carried his opposition to the extreme. But disapproving of the president's interference with the public revenues, he had, since the removal of the deposits, generally voted on this and kindred ques. tions with the opposition. Opposed to the use of banks altogether, he had at the preceding session offered a similar amendment to the bill then pending. The amendment now offered was rejected : ayes, 33, noes, 161.

It is worthy of note, that the state bank system of deposit, which was adopted by the administration party with almost entire unanimity, was, within two or three years thereafter, abandoned in favor of the subtreasury scheme, which it had so generally and unqualifiedly condemned; and that the whigs, preferring the state banks to the sub-treasury as a place of deposit, became the advocates of the former system rejected by their opponents.

At the time of the adoption, by the senate, March 28, 1834, of the resolution of Mr. Clay, pronouncing the president's proceedings in relation to the deposits to be in derogation of the constitution and laws, Mr. Benton gave notice of his intention to move, from time to time, that the resolution be expunged from the journal, until it should be done, or until he should cease to be a member of that body. In pursuance of that intention, on the 18th of February, 1835, he moved a resolution, ordering the obnoxious resolution to be expunged, because it was “illegal and unjust, of evil example, indefinite and vague, expressing a criminal charge without specification; and was irregularly and unconstitutionally adopted by the senate in subversion of the rights of defense which belong to an accused and impeachable officer; and at a time and under circumstances to endanger the political rights, and to injure the pecuniary interests of the people of the United States."

Mr. Poindexter objected to the reception of the resolution, on the ground that it was out of order. The constitution made it the duty of each house to keep a journal of their proceedings, and the senate had no right to expunge any of those proceedings from its journal.

Mr. Brown, of North Carolina, said, that to pronounce the alteration of the journal unconstitutional, was anticipating a conclusion that could be reached only through an investigation; yet the senator from

а

Mississippi would arrest the inquiry in its incipient stage. Besides several states-four or five, he believed-had, by their legislatures, sent instructions to their senators to vote for expunging the resolution. And would the senate refuse to entertain a proposition in defiance of the action of so many sovereign states?

Mr. Leigh, though opposed to the resolution, was in favor of its reception; and at his request, Mr. Poindexter withdrew his objection. Mr. Benton went into an exposition of the several reasons enumerated in his resolution, for the expurgation of the record. The conduct of the bank which gave occasion for the removal of the deposits, the removal of Mr. Duane, and kindred topics, were made the subject of remark, and were severally treated in the same manner as they had been on former occasions.

The speech of Mr. Southard in reply, or that part of it which related directly to the main subject under consideration, was also chiefly a reproduction of the arguments before used in condemnation of the course of the president and the defense of the senate. The greater part of his speech is a discussion of the incidental question of the right of instruction. This subject was argued with much ability, and the more fully, perhaps, from his representing a state whose senators were under instructions. [Appendix, Note I.]

On the last day of the session, March 3, Mr. White, of Tennessee, moved to amend the resolution, by striking out the word "expunge,' and inserting" rescind, reverse, and to make null and void." He said he could not vote to obliterate and deface the journal; and he wished the resolution so framed as to express his feelings on the subject.

Mr. Benton considered the word "expunge" strictly parliamentary. He did not wish to obliterate the journal, but to use words which would express that the resolution ought never to have been put there. The word "rescind" was not strong enough; it admitted the lawfulness of the act at the time it was done. Every senator might vote to rescind the resolution without altering his opinion.

ment.

Mr. White, at the suggestion of Mr. M'Kean, of Pennsylvania, modified his amendment by adopting the words "repeal and reverse;" and then proceeded to give additional reasons in favor of his amendAfter a discussion of considerable length, Mr. King, of Alabama, moved to amend that part of the resolution proposed to be stricken out, by first striking out the words, "ordered to be expunged from the journals," which motion was carried: ayes, 39; noes, 7.

Mr. Webster then congratulated the senate on the failure of the attempt to deface its journal, and moved that the resolution be laid upon the table, which was done without farther debate: ayes, 27;

noes, 20

A claim for indemnity for spoliations of the property of American citizens by France prior to the year 1800, was presented at the session of 1834-35. The pretension of the claimants was, that, by the treaty of 1800, the United States, in order to obtain from France a discharge from liabilities incurred by a non-fulfillment of the stipulations of the treaties of 1778, had surrendered to the French government these claims of our citizens, and had thereby become justly liable for their payment. The bill proposed to pay to the claimants $5,000,000.

Mr.

The question was ably argued in the senate, on both sides. Webster, the author of the bill, was its leading advocate; and Mr. Wright its most prominent opponent. Their speeches were not only powerful in argument, but highly valuable for the historical facts which they contained in respect to the relations between the two countries. The speech of Mr. Wright, especially, gives a minute and full history of our affairs with France.

Mr. Tyler, in stating the general ground of opposition to the bill, said, our government had not neglected any efforts to obtain recompense for the claimants. Minister after minister had been sent to France to negotiate on this point. The object had been pursued up to the year 1800, with the utmost assiduity; and the government had thus fulfilled its duties to its citizens. These claims had been pressed on the ground that the United States had, by the treaty of 1800, made provision for the payment, and, for a valid consideration, had discharged France from liability, and assumed these claims. And what was that consideration? It was one upon which no payment could be made, on which no payment could rest. By the treaty of 1778, there were mutual stipulations. One was that France should guaranty the independence of the United States, while the United States should guaranty to France the two West India Islands, Guadaloupe and Martinique.

In the war between Great Britain and France, our obligation to fulfill the treaty remained in full force. Was it expected that we should take a part in that war?. He asked if there was not a great anxiety on the part of the United States to get rid of that guaranty. And now, because, by a subsequent treaty, we had got rid of the guaranty, had citizens a right to demand compensation for losses? Such a conclusion was in opposition to every authority which could be brought forward.

The bill was supported by Messrs. Webster, Preston, Shepley, Robbins, and Prentiss; and opposed by Messrs. Tyler, Benton, Hill, Wright, King, of Georgia, and Bibb. It passed the senate on the 28th of January, 25 to 21. In the house, the committee to whom the bill was referred, reported that there was not time at this session to investigate the subject, and were discharged.

« PreviousContinue »