SENATE.] National Defence. of Representatives, and at the head of the Committee on I have said, Mr. President, that I would do this under any circumstances; so I would. But after the message of the President on the subject of our relations with France, which was communicated to this Senate very recently, (Monday,) I should consider further delay as fraught with imminent danger. I heard that communication with every feeling of pride and of patriotism. It was well worthy of its author and of the occasion, and I was surprised to hear that any Senator could have heard it with profound regret." . In pursuance, then, of the recommendation contained in that message, I would promptly put our whole country in a state of defence; the exigency of the times demands it; our relations with France demand it; a proper respect to ourselves demands it. I was utterly astonished to hear it asserted on this floor, that, under existing circumstances, to arm would be equivalent to a declaration of war. Can it be that to prepare for the contro [JAN. 20, 1836. versy, if controversy must come, between us and our ancient ally, to put our beloved country in a state of safety, to arm our fortifications, to equip our public ships, would be regarded by her as the commencement of hostilities on our part? Such may be the sentiments of some of the members of this Senate. They are not the sentiments of my mind, and I cannot yield my assent to them. Whether war or peace is to be the fate of this land, my voice is, be ready—be prepared-be well prepared for any and for every possible exigency. What! shall we, the freest nation on the globe, unembarrassed with debt, rich in resources, powerful in means, shall we, for fear of giving offence to his Majesty, fold our arms, and submit to every exaction which he may see fit to impose? Shall we hesitate to prepare to assert our rights-to maintain our honor? Shall we stand still, let patience have her perfect work, and whenever it shall be the gracious pleasure of his Most Christian Majesty "Louis Philippe" to pay us the debt France so justly owes us, to receive it with a submissive thankfulness, to bring it home, and to distribute it among the claimants? God save us from such a scene of humiliation. I say, then, Mr. President, let us, regardless of consequences, fearlessly do our duty, and all will be well. My main purpose in addressing the Senate at this time was to answer some remarks which fell from the Senator from Massachusetts in relation to the proceedings of the two Houses of Congress at the last session upon the appropriation bills. In the commencement of his remarks, the Senator passed a high encomium, well merited I presume, upon the industry and punctuality of the Senate at the last session; and I cannot suppose that the gentleman intended, in doing this, to make any insinuations or cast any reproach upon the industry and punctuality of the last House of Representatives; if he does, he certainly does that House great injustice. I was a member of that House, and by its presiding officer was placed on the Committee of Ways and Means, as well as upon the committee of conference, which has attracted so much notice, and called forth so much severity of remark, during the present discussion; and all I have to say in defence of the industry and punctu ality of that body is, that the journals will show the mass of public and of private business which was originated in that body during the last session; the dispo sition which was made of it, the number of bills which passed that body and were sent to the Senate, in addition to their proceedings upon the bills which came from the Senate. A reference to the journals of the House will satisfy the public mind on this point. I will only add that, for habits of industry, for punctuality and promptness, sure I am that it cannot suffer when put in comparison with the Senate itself. The Senator proceeds and notices what he regards as a somewhat unparliamentary proceeding, an unusual course at least, on the part of the House, in failing to give the Senate any information in reference to certain bills which had originated in the Senate, and which had passed that body, and been sent to the House for their concurrence. It so happened that I remained in this city nearly a week after the last session of Congress, and I then felt a deep mortification in reading from one of the newspapers of this city the following editorial article, under the date of the 5th of March. It contains the same sentiments which the Senator from Massachusetts has seen fit to present to the Senate in reference to this matter. I subjoin the extract. "Last day of the session-Unfinished business-West Point Academy-Loss of the fortification bill.—The two Houses of Congress adjourned the night before last, their functions then ceasing: and what a wreck of public business ensued! "In our two or three last papers we expressed our opinion respecting the state of the public business in the House of Representatives. It would have been as just had our intimation respected the state of the House. "With a great deal of talent, and we have no doubt, too, a great deal of patriotism, the late House of Repre sentatives had been brought into a condition, by various causes, in which it seemed incapable of getting on with the business of the country. Attentive observers had noticed a tendency of this kind from the early part of the session; but its last days forced the truth on the minds of all. Long debates; the endless perplexity of the rules; contests, every moment, about priority of business; and an eagerness of discussion, which seemed entirely to disregard the comparative importance of subjects, were among these causes. There were others, of which we could speak, of which indeed we shall feel it our duty to speak, and to speak freely, hereafter; but which we at present forbear to mention. "The melancholy result of the whole is, that Congress has broken up, leaving almost every great measure of the session unfinished, and therefore totally null and void. The following bills, originating in the Senate, most of them passing that body by large majorities, and some of them quite unanimously, have shared the general wreck and ruin: "The Post Office reform bill, (passed unanimously in the Senate;) "The custom-house regulations bill, (passed nearly unanimously in the Senate;) "The important Judiciary bill, (passed by a vote of 31 to 5 in the Senate;) "The bill regulating the deposite of the public mon. eys in the deposite banks; "The bill respecting the tenure of office and removals from office, (a most important bill, supported in the Senate by men of all parties;) "The bill indemnifying claimants for French spoliations before 1800. "These half dozen, (not to speak of the bill for the relief of the cities of the District of Columbia; the bill providing for the increase of the corps of engineers; the bill to carry into effect the convention between the United States and Spain; and the bill to improve the navigation of the Mississippi in the vicinity of St. Louis,) are among the bills which were sent from the Senate to the House of Representatives, and never heard of more.' "The fate of two of the appropriation bills, however, originating, as such bills always do, in the House of Representatives, is still more remarkable. "Hitherto it has been usual to make the appropriations for the Military Academy at West Point in the same bill which contains the general appropriations for the army. This year an innovation was indulged. The army appropriation bill was sent to the Senate with no appropriation whatever for West Point. This circumstance was noticed at the time in the Senate, and its attention called to it as an extraordinary omission. "A separate bill, however, containing the usual appropriations for the academy, was brought forward in the House, but suffered to sleep. Up to the last day for sending bills from one House to the other, it had not passed. The House took no step whatever to pass the bill, by suspending the operation of the rule, as to sending bills from House to House, or in any other way. In this predicament, individuals of the House brought the committee of the Senate to interfere; and, in some extraordinary way, help to pass the ordinary appropriation through Congress. The Senate, accordingly, attached the whole Military Academy appropriation bill to the bill making provision for the civil and diplomatic expenditures of the year, and in this form it passed into a law; and but for the adoption of this mode, there could have [SENATE. been no appropriation at all, and the school would have been broken up. We may add that, when this bill for covering civil and diplomatic expenses went back to the House, with amendments, the occasion was eagerly seized to add to the Senate's amendment other amendments respecting totally different matters; thus giving the bill a tail as long as that of a comet. "Thus the bill pending in the House making provision for the repairs of the Capitol and President's house, improving the public grounds, paying the President's gardener, &c., was tacked on the bill as being among the civil and diplomatic expenses of the Government. This bill, however, and we rejoice at it, had the goodness to pass with all its length of tail; and, thanks to the Senate, and no thanks to the House of Representatives, the West Point Academy, therefore, was kept alive." The gentleman expressed surprise that the House should not have given to the Senate information about the bills enumerated in the preceding extract. The reason is, that there had been no final action of the House upon these bills; they had been received from the Senate, it is true, but such was the mass of public as well as private business upon its own calendar, that it was next to an impossibility for the House to have acted upon these particular bills; they had come to the House at too late a period of the session for that branch to have definitively acted upon them. Most, if not all of them were not reported to the House until after the 10th of February; and the only bill of the number which was ever taken up and considered to any great extent was the one in relation to the General Post Office. Certain the fact is, that there was no final action upon them; they were neither rejected, laid upon the table, nor indefinitely postponed; and hence no information became necessary to be communicated to the Senate in relation to them. What possible benefit could result for the House to inform the Senate by message that they had received various bills, but had come to no decision upon them? Such a communication would seem to me to be in itself not only unparliamentary, but altogether unprofitable and unnecessary. Certain the fact is, that such has not been the usual practice of the two branches of the Gov. ernment. I therefore say, sir, that the House is not obnoxious to any charge of neglect of duty on this account. The Senator from Massachusetts has rebuked the House for its course of proceeding with reference to the general appropriation bill, and particularly with reference to its course upon the bill making appropriations for the support of the West Point Academy. The article which I have just presented to the Senate contains similar charges against the House, for the same pretended omissions of duty. How is this matter? Is it true that the last House of Representatives stands properly charged for any omissions of duty? What are the facts in relation to the appropriation bill for the civil and diplomatic expenses of the Government? It was a leading object with the Committee of Ways and Means, in reporting that bill, to introduce into it no appropriation, except it had the warrant of some existing law. It was distinctly remembered how, and for what reasons, the general appropriation bill for the first session of the last Congress was opposed. It was kept in the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union for more than a month, it was most violently attacked, and most resolutely and perseveringly opposed. The Committee of Ways and Means of the last session intended to prevent, if possible, the recurrence of any such scene. The bill was reported, speedily acted on in the House, and on the 2d day of February it was sent to the Senate for their concurrence, and on the 2d day of March it passed the Senate with a little less than half a hundred amendments. In this form that bill for the support of the Government came from the Senate to SENATE.] National Defence. [JAN. 20, 1836. The Senator from Massachusetts has concluded his remarks upon this bill by adverting to an amendment which the House made to one of the numerous amendments of the Senate. He has amused us by giving an account of the incongruity of that amendment with the title and design of the bill. The House, it is true, did amend the amendments of the Senate by adding "a bill making appropriations for the public buildings and grounds, and for other purposes;" and it was upon some of the items of this bill that the Senator saw fit to display his pleasantry and wit. I would ask, sir, if there were any thing out of the way, more strange, in providing for the salary of the gardener employed in superintending the Capitol square and other public grounds," than in providing for the balance of the salary of Valentine Giesey, late superintendent of the Cumberland road; any thing more extraordi the House of Representatives. Among the amendments agreed to by the Senate was a Senate bill "confirming claims to lands in the State of Missouri, and for other purposes." A Senate bill "for completing the road from Line creek to the Chattahoochie, and for the erection of bridges on the same." A Senate bill "for granting six hundred and fifty thousand acres of land, in addition to former appropriations, for the satisfaction of revolutionary bounty land warrants;" together with various other amendments of less importance, but containing entirely new appropriations, foreign from the title as well as the intent and purport of the bill. When it passed the House, its title was "An act making appropriations for the civil and diplomatic expenses of the Government for the year 1835." And after it had been amended in the way and in the manner it was; after the Senate had attached to it bills entirely incongruous, originating in their body; after in-nary for improving Lafayette square, than in compencorporating in the bill appropriations having not the remotest connexion with the civil and diplomatic expenses of the Government, it did, indeed, become necessary to change its title, but the alteration of the title, be it remembered, was the act of the Senate; and when it reappeared in the House of Representatives its title was "An act making appropriations for the civil and diplomatic expenses of the Government for 1835, and for other purposes.' I will not undertake to say what could have induced the Senate, twenty-four hours before the close of the session, to send to the House the general appropriation bill, amended by adding to it bills which had originated in the Senate, and which had not received the consideration of the House. How it happened I know not; it certainly must be regarded as a proceeding somewhat extraordinary. But, sir, the Senator from Massachusetts has further rebuked the House of Representatives for not having incorporated in the army bill the appropriations necessary for the support of the West Point Academy. And, sir, it would occur to any man who should read this part of the speech of the Senator, or should read the article which I have read to the Senate, that there had been a most palpable omission of duty on the part of the House with reference to the appropriations for the West Point Academy. This imputation, cast upon the House of Representatives, is unmerited. What are the facts connected with that matter? The West Point Academy bill was reported with the other appropriation bills; it was confided to the care of one of its warmest friends on the Committee of Ways and Means, without objection, and without opposition on the part of the committee. Whatever may have been the opinions of individual members of that committee upon the propriety of continuing that institution, certain the fact is, that a bill for its support was seasonably reported, and committed to the charge of Mr. BINNEY. I have no doubt that gentleman managed the bill with his usual ability and foresight. He saw, beyond doubt, that there would be no opposition to it if it was attached by way of amendment to some one of the appropriation bills then pending in the Senate. He undoubtedly supposed that such a course was the safest and the most advisable course for him to take. He took it. But the House is charged with suffering this bill to sleep; and that the West Point Academy was saved by act of the Senate, and that no thanks are due to the House, but to the Senate, for keeping this institution alive. This is most unjust and most unmerited. There is not to be found a vote upon the journals of the House going to show any decided opposition to the measure. This amendment of the Senate to the general appropriation bill was readily agreed to by the Committee of Ways and Means, and as readily adopted by the House of Representatives. So much for this matter. sating Lemuel Slater for his services. None, unless it be in the quarter from whence those amendments proceeded. The first and third were included in the amendments proposed by the House. The second and last were amendments proposed by the Senate. The Senator from Massachusetts next proceeds to give us what he calls a narrative of the proceedings of the two Houses upon the fortification bill; and it was the fate of that bill which has elicited this debate. The recollection of the Senator and my own do not in all particulars agree. After having read the Senator's speech, I felt myself called upon, from the circumstances to which I have already referred, that of being a member of the last House of Representatives, of the Committee of Ways and Means, and also of the committee of conference, to give my account of the rise, progress, and final loss, of that bill. The fortification bill was reported to the House, from the Committee of Ways and Means, on the 2d January, 1835; it passed that body on the 20th of January; it was on the same day received by the Senate, and on the 24th day of February, thirty-five days after it was first received by the Senate, it passed that body with amendments. The Senator says, and says truly, that it was sent back to the House on Tuesday, the 24th day of February, a week before the adjournment of Congress, and asks how it happened that this bill remained from the 24th of February until the evening of the last day of the session. Sir, I can only answer this inquiry by referring to the journals. Within this period of time the House was called on to consider the amendments which the Senate had made to the general appropriation bill; the amendments which they had made to the bill making appropriations for building lightboats, beacons, &c.; the amendments which the Senate had made to the bill making appropriations for Indian annuities, &c.; with a mass of other public as well as private business, together with the absorbing questions connected with the resolutions which had been reported by the Committee on Foreign Relations upon the subject of our affairs with France. There was no delay which could be avoided; and if, by unavoidable occurrence, the action of the House on this bill was delayed until the very last day of the session, the greater the necessity for a conciliatory and an accommodating spirit, the greater the necessity for not being over nice and scrupulous touching the forms of proceeding. It is true that not until the last day of the session did the House come to any agreement upon the amendments proposed by the Senate to the fortification bill. Since I came to the Senate this morning I have procured from the files of the Senate the original bill with the amendments reported from the Committee on Finance. The first amendment recommended was to increase the appropriation for rebuilding Fort Delaware, from seventy-five to one hundred and fifty thousand dollars. The second amendment proposed was for the armament of fortifications, one hundred thousand dollars. The third amendment made was upon the motion of the Senator from Missouri, for an appropriation for the repair of Fort Mifflin. The fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments were reported from the Committee on Finance, and were as follows: "That the sum of seventy-five thousand dollars be, and the same is hereby, appropriated towards the repair of the fortifications on Castle island, in the harbor of Boston, according to the plan submitted by the board of engineers on the thirteenth day of March, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-four, the same to be paid out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated." "That the sum of one hundred thousand dollars he, and the same is hereby, appropriated, out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated, to be applied or expended, under the direction of the Secretary of War, in improving the defences within the State of Maryland." "That the Secretary of War be, and he is hereby, authorized to purchase six acres of land adjoining Fort McHenry, near Baltimore, being the same rented from the heir of the late Philip Swartzance." When the House of Representatives first acted on these amendments proposed by the Senate, they agreed to the second, third, and sixth amendments; and ultimately agreed to the first and to the fifth, with an amendment, leaving only the fourth amendment, which had also been agreed to in the first instance by the House, with an amendment embraced in the following section, which the House proposed to add: [SENATE. tions to these very items, so anxious were they to secure the passage of the fortification bill. They not only agreed to the other amendments, but they reversed their former decision, and agreed to one and all the amendments proposed by the Senate, with an additional section, proposing an appropriation of three millions of dollars for the defence and permanent security of the country. Is there a man within our republic who does not regret, most deeply regret, the loss of the fortification bill of the last session? Is there a man in office or out office, on the seaboard or in the interior, who does not now regret, most deeply regret, that the appropriation proposed by the House at the last session, "for fortifications, for ordnance, and for increase of the navy," did not become a law? I will not believe, I cannot believe, that there is an individual between Maine and Florida, between the lakes and the ocean, who does not, in truth and in soberness, regret it. The House, in perfect good faith, and under a deep conviction that the state of the country required that a large amount should be appropriated for the purpose of general defence, proposed this appropriation as an amendment to the Senate's amendment. At that late period of the session it could not have accomplished this object in any other way; it was not for the reason that the House objected to the fourth amendment of the Senate, but it was merely and solely for the purpose of obtaining a large appropriation for the objects specified in the amendment, which induced the action of the House-an appropriation which not only the defenceless state of our whole maritime and inland frontiers demanded, but which the peculiar exigency of the times, the state and posture of our affairs with France, called loudly and pressingly on Congress to make. How was this feeling met? How was this proposition treated by the Senate? There could be no misappre "That the sum of three millions of dollars be, and the same is hereby, appropriated, out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated, to be expend-hension—no mistake about the object; and yet, no sooner ed, in whole or in part, under the direction of the President of the United States, for the military and naval service, including fortifications and ordnance, and increase of the navy: Provided, Such expenditures shall be rendered necessary for the defence of the country prior to the next meeting of Congress." It follows, then, from all this, that the House felt an anxious solicitude for the passage of this bill; that, so far from opposing its passage, they assented to the various amendments of the Senate; and it is matter of history in relation to the proceedings of the two Houses upon this very bill, that the House had yielded the objections which it at first entertained as to the propriety of the very appropriations embraced in the amendments, and ultimately agreed to pass each of those with one amend ment. It will appear, distinctly appear, by a reference to the House journals, that while the fortification bill was under consideration, Mr. Everett, of Massachusetts, moved the following amendment: "For the preservation of Castle island, and for repairing the fortifications on Castle island, in Boston harbor, &c., seventy-five thousand dollars." That Mr. McKim moved to amend the bill by adding, "For repairing Fort McHenry, at Baltimore, and for putting the same in a proper state of defence, fifty thousand dollars." Both of the propositions were rejected on a vote by yeas and nays in the House; the first by a majority of thirty-three: Yeas 87, nays 120; the second by a majority of sixty-three: Yeas 66, nays 129; and yet, after the Committee on Finance had kept in their possession this very bill thirty-five days, they reported it to the Senate with amendments; and two of the amendments proposed were, in truth, the amendments which had been rejected by the House. Yet, sir, the House gave up their objecVOL. XII.--15 was the communication made, no sooner was the amendment read at the table of the Secretary, than the Senator from Massachusetts moved to disagree to the amendment. The motion was carried. The House were informed of this proceeding of the Senate. A motion was then made for the House to recede from their amendment. That motion was negatived by a decided majority. Information was at once communicated to the Senate; and, without any intervening motion, the Senator from Massachusetts moved that the Senate adhere to their vote of disagreement. This proceeding on the part of the Senate has been justly commented upon by the Senator from Georgia. Cer It is unnecessary for me to add to his remarks. tainly it was, considering the lateless of the hour, a most embarrassing, a truly unfortunate motion. On this information being communicated to the House, a motion was again made that the House do recede; it was attended with the same result. Anxious to save the bill, if possible, a motion was made that the House do insist on their amendment. A conference was asked; it was voted; and conferees were appointed. The Senator from Virginia has stated that when the conferees on the part of the Senate left the hall of the Senate, it lacked fifteen minutes or twenty minutes of eleven o'clock; and when the conferees returned, it was about the same number of minutes after the hour of eleven. If, sir, the Senator from Virginia be correct in point of time, there must have been a great difference between the time of the House and the time of the Senate. It is utterly impossible for me to account for this difference. If the gentleman had, in the course of the evening, regulated his own watch by the uncertain dial over his head, there would be no difficulty in accounting for the great difference between the time as indicated by the watch of the Senator from Virginia, and the time as indicated by the SENATE.] National Defence. watches of other gentlemen. The Senator from Massachusetts, who was the chairman of the committee of conference on the part of the Senate, remarked that he had no particular recollection of the exact time, having taken no note of it. Sir, am I entirely mistaken as to the occurrences which took place in the committee after the committees of conference had assembled? I must be, or else the Senator is entirely mistaken. While the committee were together, and trying to agree upon a report, the Senator from Massachusetts drew from his pocket his own watch, if I do not altogether misrecollect, and reminded us that it lacked but a few minutes of twelve, and that we had but a few minutes to spare. He did this, as I then supposed, and as I now believe, to induce a speedy action of the committee upon the subject which had been referred to them. The committees did agree upon a report. Mr. Cambreleng dissented. Mr. Lewis and myself, constituting a majority of the committee on the part of the House, did agree to the report. I have no doubt but that the Senator from Virginia is correct in the statement that the committee of conference must have been absent at least one half hour; this fact is inferrible from his account of the time. But, sir, it cannot be correct, in my opinion, that the committee could have have reappeared in the Senate until past the hour of twelve o'clock. I am not without some record to confirm me in this statement--a record made by one of the reporters of the House, and published in one of the journals of this city, after the adjournment. I subjoin the following extract from the National Intelligencer: The amendment made to the fortification bill was then under discussion. The House had been informed of the vote of the Senate to adhere, and after some debate, according to the Intelligencer, and in perfect accordance with my own recollection, the following is the order of the subsequent proceedings: "Mr. HUBBARD said, if the House adhered, the bill I would be lost. He moved that the House appoint a committee of conference. "Mr. LEWIS said it was not the amount of the appropriation, but the principle, which was objected to by the Senate. A committee of conference might, therefore, adjust the disagreement. The manner of the appropriation was too loose. It was not specific. It put every thing into the hands of the Executive. He asked what would be the effect of the previous question. "The CHAIR replied, only to preclude debate. "The motion for the previous question was withdrawn. The motion to ask a conference was agreed to; and Messrs. CAMBRELENG and LEWIS were appointed the committee of conference on the part of the House. "Mr. HARDIN asked if the House was not virtually dissolved by the expiration of the term for which this Congress was elected. "The CHAIR said it was not a question of order, and the Chair could not decide it. "The Cumberland road bill was taken up and read a third time. "Mr. McKAY moved that a message be sent to the other House, informing them that this House, having completed its business, is ready to adjourn. "The CHAIR said the motion was not in order, the question being on the passage of the bill. "The Clerk proceeded to take the yeas and nays on the passage of the bill to continue and repair the Cumberland road, and "Mr. GILMER, when his name was called, rose and said he considered that he had no right to vote, the term for which he was elected having expired at twelve o'clock this night; and he therefore declined voting." It will appear that Mr. Cambreleng and myself both voted against the passage of the Cumberland road bill, and before the committee of conference was organized. [JAN. 20, 1836. There can be no mistake in this matter. The order of proceeding published in the Intelligencer, as noted by the reporter, is, beyond all question, correct; and it distinctly appears, from the journals of the House, that the committee of conference was appointed immediately before the vote of the House upon the "Cumberland road bill," and there can be no doubt that, while the yeas and nays were taking on the motion to pass that bill, Mr. Gilmer, of Georgia, objected, when his name was called, to voting, for the avowed reason that the hour of twelve had arrived, and that the functions of the House had terminated. He did not vote, and one, if not more, of his colleagues, entertaining the same views, did not vote on the passage of that bill. It even appears, from the publication in the Intelligencer -an authority which neither the Senator from Virginia nor the Senator from Massachusetts will, I presume, question-that, before the consideration of that bill was moved, Mr. Hardin, of Kentucky, made a question whether the House could constitutionally proceed in the transaction of business, as the hour of twelve o'clock had arrived. From all this, I submit whether the Senator from Virginia could be correct as to the precise time when the committees entered upon the discharge of their respective duties, and when they returned to their respective Houses. It is important, in my view, and will be regarded as important by others, to fix, with as great a degree of certainty as possible, the time when the report of the conferees was agreed on, and when it could have been presented to the two Houses; for if it was past twelve o'clock, the House could not, consistently with their duty, have received it. After that hour, they no longer existed as a legislative body. This was an opinion conscientiously entertained by many members of that House. If the time of the House was necessarily consumed, if a delay was occasioned by any extraordinary vote or proceeding on the part of the Senate in relation to this bill, ought its ultimate loss to be imputed to the House of Representatives? Ought they to be made answerable for its failure? I think not. When Mr. Cambreleng appeared in the House with his report, the yeas and nays were then calling on a motion, I believe, of Mr. Mason, of Virginia, to allow Robert P. Letcher his pay as a member of the House at the last session. He was in time to answer to the call of his name; but, from the result of that vote, it appeared that no quorum was in attendance; and from that time until the last moment of the session no quorum of the House could be procured, for the reason that it was believed that the House had no authority to act. Hence the bill, with all its amendments, was lost. And having faithfully given a narrative of the occurrences as they took place, I leave to the nation, to the American people, to decide whether the loss can with justice or with propriety be imputed to the chairman of the committee of conference on the part of the House, or to the members of that committee, or to the House itself. It will be recollected that this last amendment to the fortification bill, and which was attended with such fatal consequences to that bill, was proposed by the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations. It was supported on the ground that the peculiar state of our affairs with France rendered it proper and expedient. The amendment was not regarded by its friends in the House as unreasonable, on the ground of the amount of the appropriation. It was believed to be no more than would be necessary, in a certain event, for the objects specified in the amendment. was it regarded as objectionable in its terms or extraordinary in its character, nor was the proposition regarded as invading any principle of the constitution. Nor And why was this amendment opposed in the Senate? |