But, decorous, and not dangerous in their tendencies. The gentleman calls this a great "national question." I protest, sir, against its being so considered. The nation has nothing to do with slave property. It is simply a delicate question of private, individual right, wholly and solely under the control of the States where slavery exists. It is a reserved State right, with which the general Government has no right of interference even, and from intermeddling with which the free States and their inhabitants should scrupulously abstain. [FER. 16, 1835. The pseudo-philanthropists of the North do but defeat I hope, sir, that this House will not shock the South Mr. BOULDIN said he should not have risen again but for a remark made by his friend and colleague, [Mr. WISE.] His colleague had said that he was not for sending a firebrand in the South; but for this part of his colleague's remarks, he would not have risen to say another word. Mr. B. said, far be it from him to cast, or be the means of casting, a firebrand in the South, or But he had said he would the North, or any where. vote to print, merely that the South might know what was going on. He would put it to his colleague, if presenting such memorials as this was not, as his colleague had said, like putting a torch to a man's house; and if a proposition not to print was not like putting a torch to his colleague's house privately, and, on detection, asking him to keep it a secret. Mr. WISE explained, and said he had no allusion to him, and that he was among the last men he would charge with throwing a firebrand. Mr. BOULDIN said he was sure of that; but did not Mr. ARCHER then rose and asked leave to make a Mr. B. said, far be it from him, and very far had it He said the South had their infirmities, their weaknesses, and their misfortunes, and perhaps the one alluded to was the greatest misfortune to which the But had gentlepeople of the South were liable. men no misfortunes, no infirmities, in the body politic among them? Suppose he were to go into their coun. try, and inquire into every thing, and see what they had and could not well get rid off. But he would not. He had no idea of being reduced to the necessity of answering and defending every infirmity and misfortune incident to our nature, or cower under the charge. Let them that were without fault cast the first stone. He would, before sitting down, say one thing. He had seen, in the testimony taken before the House of Commons in England, proof that a man and his wife had literally starved for want of the work to which they were brought up, in making negro cotton. He knew that many negroes had died from exposure to weather, for the want of that negro cotton. Clad in a flimsy fah FEB. 16, 1835.] Writings of Washington--Washington and Baltimore Railroad. ric, that will turn neither wind nor water, substituted by Northern and Eastern people, who present these memorials, or from whose region they are presented, which substitute sold, under protecting duties, for the profit of perhaps four pence half-penny in the yard. So the poor Englishman is starved, and the poor slave perishes in the cold, for this profit. It appears, then, that after all their piteous ditties, sung and said, their philanthropy does not amount to 64 cents a yard in the negro's clothing. Having said thus much, and after bearing his colleague, and lest it should be thought by any one that he wished to throw a firebrand any where, he would, at the suggestion of his friend and colleague, [Mr. ARCHER,] with a view to get clear of the whole matter, and lay it on the table, yield to him the floor to make that motion. Mr. ARCHER said he considered it almost as indiscreet in gentlemen from the South or slave-holding States to discuss this question, as it was for the Representatives from the North to introduce it. He would add nothing to this remark, but moved to lay the whole subject on the table. The question was then taken on laying the motion on the table, by yeas and nays, and decided in the affirmative: Ayes 139, noes 63. WRITINGS OF WASHINGTON. Mr. WISE, from the committee on the subject, reported the following joint resolution: Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of State be, and he is hereby, authorized to purchase of Russell, Odiorne & Co. one thousand copies of the writings of General George Washington, now being edited by Jared Sparks, provided that the said works shall not cost more than three dollars per volume. And the Secretary of State shall cause to be distributed a copy of the same to each member of the present Congress, to each Governor of the States, for the use of the State libraries, to each university and college of the United States, and to the public libraries in foreign countries, whose Governments have made presents of valuable books to the library of Congress, and that the purchase money of the same be, and is hereby, appropriated out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated by law. The resolution was read twice, and Mr. WISE moved to commit it to the Committee of the Whole. Mr. SMITH, of Maine, said he hoped the House would dispose of the resolution now. Every gentleman must be aware of the difficulty of knowing when a resolution of this description will be taken up, in the haste of proceedings at the close of a session. It is impossible for those opposed to keep watch of its progress, and it may pass from its not being observed, when it would not under other circumstances. Sir, I am opposed to it. It must be known to the House that, under two resolutions of this House passed at the last session of the present Congress, more than $41,000 have been expended for books for the members of this House. This appears from the published account rendered by the Clerk of the House. This, sir, ought to suffice for one Congress. I regret to say that I voted at the last session for one of the resolutions to which I now allude, while it was passing a preliminary stage. But, sir, if there is one vote of all the votes I have ever given, that I desire to blot out more than all the rest, it is that vote. That the books now offered are valuable, I do not doubt. That they are desirable, is also true. I would, sir, that every individual in the nation had a copy of them. But I do not think we are justified in voting these books for our private libraries, nor even to recompense those who have generously contributed to the public library of Con [H. OF R. gress. They do not relate to the legislation of the country. They appertain to the general history of the na tion. Those who desire them should obtain them at their individual expense. I know not, said Mr. S., the source whence this resolution has come; for, until now, I never heard of it. But, sir, I will assure the mover of it that I am opposed to it, not upon the ground that the books are not valuable, nor upon the ground that they are not desirable and useful as history, but solely upon the ground that we ought not here, as the Representatives of the people, to vote ourselves books of this description, to be paid for out of the public treasury. He concluded by moving to lay the resolution on the table, but withdrew the motion on a pledge for its renewal by Mr. WISE, who further explained, adverted to the heavy expense of the publishers, and the patronage which had been extended to other works having weaker claims. The resolution went to limit the price. Three volumes had been already published, and it was expected the work would extend to twelve volumes. He hoped the House would not consent to the motion he was now pledged to make. He thereupon renewed the motion to lay the resolution on the table, and demanded the yeas and nays upon it. By permission, he replied, in answer to a query whether these writings were not those the MSS. of which had been already purchased by Congress, that they were, though the whole was not to be published. The yeas and nays were then taken, and stood: Yeas 141, nays 48. So the resolution was laid upon the table. STATUE OF JEFFERSON. Mr. JARVIS reported a resolution, directing the bronze statue of Jefferson to be removed from the rotundo, and kept in some safe place until Congress should take order for its disposal. Mr. MERCER moved to amend, by striking out all after the removal. After some desultory conversation, Mr. CHINN moved to lay the resolution on the table; but the motion was negatived: Ayes 68, noes 85. Mr. MASON, of Virginia, inquired whether the House had accepted the statue. He understood that the House had accepted, and the Senate refused. Under these circumstances, he thought the owner (Lieutenant Levy) ought to be allowed to take back the statue. Mr. MERCER explained his reason for moving the amendment to be that he was unwilling the House should accept a present from any but a distinguished source; as it was a high honor for the House to confer, to receive a present on behalf of the nation from any one. He would vote to-morrow for ordering a suitable statue of Mr. Jefferson to be executed. Mr. ADAMS thought the motion in its present form was not respectful to the donor of the statue; especially after the House had voted to accept it. He should prefer that directions should be added for the returning the statue to the owner. The discussion was cut off by a motion of Mr. POLK that the House pass to the orders of the day; which prevailed. WASHINGTON AND BALTIMORE RAILROAD. On motion of Mr. CHINN, the House took up the bill authorizing the Baltimore and Washington Railroad Company to construct a railroad within the District. Mr. PARKER moved several amendments to the bill, the principal feature of which was to relieve the company from the restriction which confined them to the streets, and the requiring of the road to pass through the city to the company's basin near Georgetown. Mr. P. explained and defended his amendment in a speech of much earnestness; to which Mr. CHINN H. OF R.] Statue of Jefferson-Compensation to R. P. Letcher. briefly replied, stating that the bill, as reported, had the concurrence both of the company and of the cor poration of Washington. Mr. McKIM, to end the discussion, moved the previous question. Mr. PARKER moved an adjournment, but it was negatived. The previous question was then seconded: Ayes 91, noes 32; and being put and carried, the bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time to-morrow. A short time was then spent on a bill for certain improvements in Florida; but there being scarce a quorum left in the House, the farther consideration of the bill was postponed, and The House thereupon adjourned. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 17. STATUE OF JEFFERSON. The joint resolution for the removal of the bronze statue of Jefferson out of the rotundo was taken up, as the unfinished business of yesterday. Mr. McKINLEY moved to postpone the resolution till to-morrow, and thereupon he asked the yeas and nays; which were refused. The motion was agreed to: 78 to 63. COMPENSATION TO R. P. LETCHER. Mr. McKINLEY asked if it was now in order to take up the resolution in relation to the election of printer. The SPEAKER stated that the business in order was the resolution reported from the Committee of Elections; which was read. Mr. McKINLEY moved to lay the resolution on the table; which motion was rejected: 74 to 81. The House then resumed the consideration of the following resolution, reported from the Committee of Flections: "Resolved, That Robert P. Letcher, having been returned as the rightful member of the House of Representatives of the United States from the fifth congressional district of Kentucky, is entitled to compensation as a member of the last and present session." The question being on the adoption of the amendment offered by Mr. HARDIN, including within the proposition Thomas P. Moore, Mr. VANDERPOEL said, as he was a member of the Committee of Elections last year, and was still connected with that committee, he would take the opportunity of saying a word about the resolution and amendment under consideration. It would be recollected that the committee had reported that Mr. Moore was duly elected, but had also reported that both gentlemen ought to be paid. The House decided that the question, as to who was the elected member, was a matter of so much doubt that it could not satisfactorily decide it, and accordingly referred it to the people. This tribunal had decided in favor of Mr Letcher, and the committee could not therefore reasonably, at least so far as it regarded Mr. Letcher, recede from the ground they had taken last session. If the House was then under obligation to pay either party, that obligation was not discharged by any thing that has since transpired. To be sure, Mr. Letcher had said, at the conclusion of the speech which he had made at the bar of the House, that, without having his seat, he would not receive his pay, but this did not absolve the House from its liability, if it ever existed. Mr. V. said he would vote for the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky, [Mr. HARDIN,] which proposed to pay Mr. Moore, but, should that be rejected. he would still vote to pay Mr. Letcher. The committee had proposed to pay both, because they conceived Mr. Moore to be the certificated member, and because both [FEB. 17, 1835. gentlemen had been detained here under the order of the House. The claim of Mr. Letcher was certainly not weakened by a decision in his favor, by the tribunal (the people) to which the case was referred. Still he would, for the reasons before stated, and in accordance with what the committee had recommended last year, vote to pay both. This was a very peculiar case, and would not, probably, very soon occur again. He would prefer having the cases or claims of each gentleman brought before the House in the shape of distinct propositions, that one might not embarrass the other; but as the amendment was proposed, he would vote for it; and repeated that, if rejected, he would vote for the original resolution. Mr. LETCHER, in order, he said, that he might place himself rectus in curia, as to this matter, explained that what he said last session was, that he would not take the pay unless he was entitled to the seat. He did not say that he would not accept the pay if he was entitled to the seat. Mr. J. Y. MASON said it was a constitutional privilege to contest the claim for a seat in this House, on proper grounds; but it had never occurred that two individuals received pay at the same time. He had no doubt that the travelling expenses of the claimants ought to be paid in every case. He read the resolution of the last session which, he said, referred it to the people to determine who was the rightful member. The people had determined the question in favor of Mr. Letcher. Mr. BEARDSLEY was willing, be said, to vote in favor of giving mileage to both of the gentlemen, and he would go no further as to either. The people had not determined that either of the claimants were ever elected; and neither of them, he thought, had any claim to a per diem compensation. As to the present member, the House had determined that they were incapable of determining who was elected. The question was sent back, not for the people to say which had been elected; for that was not the question submitted; but it was left to the electors to determine who they would choose, and they chose Mr. Letcher in preference to Mr. Moore. We were now asked to pay these gentlemen per diem for attending here to contest the seat. He considered it extravagant to pay two members, when the House had determined that neither of them was elected. There was good reason for paying the mileage, but further than that he would not go. If one obtained the per diem allowance, however, the other ought also to have it. He should vote for the amendment and against the resolution. Mr. JONES, of Georgia, said this case was very different from any which had ever before been presented. It was customary for the House, in case of a contested election, to pay the sitting member up to the time when the adverse claim was established, and to pay the successful claimant also from the commencement of the session up to that time. In this case, then, two members were paid. The gentleman from New York was mistaken as to the determination of the House at the last session. They did not determine that neither of the claimants was elected, but that it was impossible to determine which was elected. Mr. LANE said that contesting a seat in this House was a voluntary act of the claimants, who were not brought here by order of the House. The House in this case could not come to a satisfactory conclusion which was chosen, and referred it to the people to determine who was entitled to the seat. The people had decided, and he would take that as a proof who is and was elected. He would therefore vote only for the pay of one. Mr. EVANS was opposed, he said, to the amendment which proposed to pay the unsuccessful candidate, unless there was a precedent for it. If there was a precedent, he would vote for the amendment, though he considered FEB. 17, 1835.] Heirs of Count de Grasse--Navy Pay Bill. it as a very bad precedent. One of the claimants (Mr. Moore) exhibited a certificate of election, which was decided to be insufficient. The other claimant offered to prove that he had received a majority of votes, and that, but for the censurable conduct of an officer, he would have been returned, in the regular manner, as elected. Now, he (Mr. E.) held to the principle, that what ought to have been done was done. To pay Mr. Moore would be to establish a principle that persons coming here to contest any thing shall be paid, if they are unsuccessful. Mr. CLAYTON said it was a good maxim in law, that what ought to be done is done. When the claimants presented themselves at the last session, if the House had declared one of them to be entitled to the seat, that one would, of course, receive his regular pay. But both of the claimants agreed not to take the seat, and to leave the question to be adjudicated by the House. The House kept them here all the session, and, finally, left the question to the people. The House certainly would not say that the pay which the sitting member from Kentucky would have received, should now go into the public treasury. Mr. Letcher would have been entitled to the pay if he had taken the seat; and no one could say that the Government was entitled to that money. Mr. Moore he considered justly entitled to mileage. Mr. BURGES said that, when there was ground of contest, elections ought to be contested at the expense of the nation. It would have the tendency to purify elections to enable men to come here and contest them when they were at all questionable. Mr. R. M. JOHNSON said he could make no difference between the parties. They received nearly an equal number of votes, and neither of them could have deserted his post, and his friends, and declined the contest before the House. He was in favor of paying both, and should vote for the original proposition and for the amendment. Mr. CLAY said the House had spent several weeks in discussing this subject last year, and seemed now disposed to renew the discussion. Confiding in the disposition of the House to do ample justice to the claim of Mr. Moore whenever it was brought before the House, he moved the previous question. The House refused to second the motion for the previous question, by a vote of 67 to 92. Mr. POLK moved that the House proceed to the orders of the day; which was agreed to: 93 to 64. HEIRS OF COUNT DE GRASSE The SPEAKER laid before the House the following message from the President of the United States; which was referred to the Committee on Revolutionary Claims: To the House of Representatives of the United States: I transmit to the House of Representatives, for their consideration, a petition to the Congress of the United States, from Adelaide Grasse de Grochamps, one of the surviving daughters of the Count de Grasse, together with the letters which accompanied it. Translations of these are also sent. ANDREW JACKSON. WASHINGTON, February 16, 1835. Mr. WATMOUGH moved to postpone all the previous orders of the day, for the purpose of taking up the bill to regulate the pay of the navy. Mr. POLK demanded the yeas and nays; which were ordered, and were: Yeas 110, nays 103. So the motion prevailed. NAVY PAY BILL. The House then took up the bill to regulate the pay of the navy of the United States. [H. OF R. The question pending was on the following amendment, offered by Mr. POPE: "That the bill, with its amendments, be submitted to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, with instructions to amend the same by striking out from the thirty-second to the thirty-ninth line, inclusive, and inserting in lieu thereof "When commanding a squadron on foreign service, three thousand five hundred dollars. "When commanding a single ship, or in any other service, three thousand dollars. "When on leave, or waiting orders, two thousand dollars." And by striking out the remainder of the bill from the commencement of the one hundred and ninety-fifth line, beginning with the word " including." Mr. POPE said, as the House had consented to take up the bill, he hoped they would dispose of it without discussion, and the motion would be agreed to. After some conversation as to the mode of proceeding, Mr. FILLMORE called for a division of the question, on commitment and instructions. Mr. BEAUMONT then said, as this bill provided for an increase of the salaries of officers, and was not intended to benefit the sailors, he moved to lay the motion to recommit on the table. The question was taken by yeas and nays, and decided in the negative: Yeas 75, nays 132. Mr. POPE modified his motion to instruct, so as to leave the allowance of ten cents a mile for travel, and to allow the captains in command $4,000 when on foreign service. Mr. GILLET was anxious, he said, to add a declaratory clause to the end of the bill, to prevent any extra allowances. But he was willing to allow ten cents a mile for travel. If the House would go into committee without instructions, they would be able to amend the bill, so as to render it more generally acceptable. Mr. S. JONES suggested that the clause might be added to the instructions moved by the gentleman from Kentucky. Mr. HARDIN thought it better, he said, to go into committee without instructions, and to let the amendments be there moved, one by one. Mr. BURGES was in favor of going into committee without instructions. The motion to recommit the bill with instructions was divided, and first put on recommitment; which was agreed to. The House then, on motion of Mr. WATMOUGH, went into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, Mr. BRIGGS in the chair. Mr. POPE moved to amend the bill, so as to fix the pay of captains, when commanding squadrons on foreign service, at $4,000; commanding a single ship, $3,000; and when off duty, $2,000. Mr. WISE moved to amend this amendment, by making the first sum $4,000, the second $3,500, and the third $2,500. On this amendment a very desultory debate arose, in which it was contended by Mr. WISE that the amendment of Mr. POPE; instead of raising, would actually reduce the pay of all captains in the navy. Mr. POPE, on the other hand, insisting that the amendment he had offered met the wishes of nine hundred and sixty out of one thousand officers of the navy. After repeated ineffectual attempts to get a quorum to vote, tellers were demanded, and being appointed, the vote stood: Ayes 79, noes 46. So the amendment of Mr. WISE to the amendment of Mr. POPE was adopted. Mr. POPE then moved further to amend the bill by striking out all extra allowances to officers, save ten cents a mile for travelling expenses when under orders. Mr. GILLET moved to amend this amendment, so as to insert prohibitory clauses against not only all extra allowances, but all rations also; so as to confine the pay of the officers to a salary alone. Mr. GILLET said, in submitting the amendments which he had the honor to offer, he begged leave to state that his object was to perfect the bill, as far as it was possible to do so. He was the more anxious to do so, as he clearly foresaw that the bill would pass. His amendment was to strike out these words: "One ration per day only shall be allowed to all officers when attached to vessels for sea service. "The compensation hereinbefore specified shall be in full for pay and subsistence, and for all allowances in lieu of cabin furniture to commanders of vessels and squadrons, and for all allowances to officers attached to navy yards, or employed on any shore duty, except for detention on surveys of the coasts and yards, or vessels, or courts-martial, or boards of examination, for which an additional allowance of two dollars per day shall be made; for house rent or chamber money, for which two dollars per week shall be allowed, where quarters or public accommodations be not provided, and for travel under orders, for which ten cents per mile shall be allowed. And all acts, or parts of acts, inconsistent with the provisions of this act, are hereby repealed. "SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That the Secretary of the Treasury shall be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to deduct from the pay hereafter to become due of the commission and warrant officers of the navy of the United States three per centum of the amount thereof, and to pay the same to the Secretary of the Navy and the Navy Commissioners for the time being, who are hereby appointed a board of commissioners, by the name and style of "Commissioners of the Navy Widows' and Orphans' fund;" which, together with any other moneys to which the fund may become legally entitled, shall constitute a fund to be invested by said board, and the proceeds of it divided and disbursed in such manner as may be hereafter prescribed by Congress." And insert the following: "That no allowance shall hereafter be made to any officer employed in the naval service of the United States, for drawing bills, for receiving or disbursing money, or transacting any business for the Government of the United States, nor shall he be allowed servants, or pay for servants, or clothing or rations for them, or pay for the same; nor shall any allowance be made to him for rent of quarters, or to pay rent for furniture, or for lights or fuel, or for travelling expenses or transporting baggage; nor shall any such officer be allowed to transport, or aid in transporting, for pay, any specie or property for any person. It is hereby expressly declared that the yearly allowance provided in this act is all the pay, compensation, and allowance, that shall be received, under any circumstances whatever, by any such officer." It would at once be perceived that he had several objects in view. He desired, firstly, to dispense with the ration which was provided. The retaining it would be adding to the salary of each officer, when attached to a vessel, $91 25 per annum. When all the officers of the navy should be attached to vessels, this would create an expense, beyond the large salaries now proposed, of about one hundred thousand dollars a year; and, when averaged among the whole, would increase their pay, beyond the proposed salaries, about ten per cent. There was no good reason for this indirect increase. It partook of the character of the "allowances" of which he should presently speak. The only reason he had heard assigned for the continuance of this ration was, that sometimes, at sea, it would so happen that the officers would need the usual sea stores of [FEB. 17, 1835. the ship. In practice, however, it was well known these rations were seldom received in kind, but in cash. There could be no practical difficulty in dispensing with the ration. The officer might receive it from the ship's stores, and have it charged to him as so much applicable to his pay; and he could not perceive why it could not be as easily charged to him as so much wages paid as so much rations. The labor would all be the same. He thought the salaries high enough without this addition. The increase of the expense of the navy was quite as great, without it, as would be satisfactory to the country. He Mr. G. said, in ordinary times, he should have expected to see one large division in this House voting with him, in his effort to prevent so great an increase in salaries of the officers of the general Government. alluded to those who, at the last session, had expressed the opinion that money had very much increased in value, by the act of the Executive, and those who had voted to diminish the salaries of numerous public officers twenty-five per cent., when the pay of those officers did not average as much as the present pay of naval officers. He believed the chairman of the select committee, [Mr. WATMOUGH,] who was urging this bill, had been, on the occasion alluded to, particularly favorable to the effort to diminish the pay of most of the civil list. The proposition was then to reduce the pay of the Vice President and the heads of Departments below what it is now proposed to give captains in the navy. Even the postmasters in the country, although their whole yearly compensation might not amount to twenty dollars, were to have had one fourth of that sum taken away, because money was then, and was to continue to be, at least that much more valuable than it was a year before. He thought the chairman, and those who had acted with him at the time referred to, stood in a singular position to advocate an increase of salaries, already higher and more adequate to service rendered than those he had attempted to reduce one fourth. And the effort to annex to the high salaries provided in this bill an emolument of $91 25 per annum to each officer, came with a peculiar ill grace from that quarter. He confidently expected that those who professed to be opposed to the increase of the expenses of the general Government, who had been so free in their censure of its past expenses, and expressed such apprehensions for the future, would go with him, at least so far as to cut off this indirect increase. Gentlemen well knew that, if Congress passed laws requiring expenditures, the Executive must execute those laws. He must carry their law into effect; and if there was any fault in the expenses of the general Government, it was chargeable to Congress, who pass laws requiring those expenses. Congress controlled this subject, and if there was ground for censure, it was with that branch of the public service. Until it was shown that the President expends money without the authority of law, he ought to escape censure; and gentlemen should be slow in their criticisms in this matter upon the law-making power. He hoped he should not call in vain upon the House to go with him in his efforts to prevent this enormous and unnecessary increase in the public expenditures. Mr. G. said the House would perceive in the other part of his amendment, in which he proposed to strike out the provision giving other compensation in certain cases, that he aimed a blow at what is here well understood by the term extra allowances. It was by virtue of these, that officers, occasionally at least, had had very valuable additions made to their regular pay. Mr. G. said that, when he had the honor first to propose this amendment, it did not appear to meet with much approbation; and particularly from the chairman of the select committee, [Mr. WATMOUGH,] who said it would k |