Pay of Pursers in the Navy.

it, and he thought it was improper to pay them | war. He dwelt again on the necessity of giving while off duty. That a whole corps should be paid at all times when out of service he could not agree, and would therefore vote against the provision.

SENATE.]

Pay of Pursers in the Navy.

[APRIL, 1830.

whole bill has been suggested by considera- | per annum. They are to receive, too, while not tions of reform in the department of the Gov-in service, the same pay as a lieutenant. Mr. F. ernment. said he could not see what possible public ad

Mr. Foor said he might have misapprehended vantage could be derived from this alteration. the bill, but he was of opinion that it was neither The whole number of ships (he said) was calculated to reform nor to decrease our ex-twenty-five; and allowing a purser to each, penses. The first section of the bill proposes the increase of expenditure, according to a that all articles be provided by Government, calculation he made, would be thirty-three under the direction of the Navy Department. thousand three hundred dollars; the expense, Now, any one who is at all acquainted with our according to the present system, being twentyforeign stations knows that it is often necessary eight thousand three hundred and eighty, and to make purchases at foreign ports. Each according to the proposed plan sixty-one thouship must then have an agent, or a new depart- sand six hundred and eighty dollars. The bill ment must be created-a purchasing depart-proposes an increase of pay more than one ment, Mr. F. supposed.

hundred per cent. of what it now is, while the officers who perform services at sea, with the exception of the captain of a squadron, receive not more than the purser of a second-rate vessel.

Mr. WOODBURY said the second section of the bill provides that, where there is no navy agent to make the necessary purchases, the purser shall be permitted to purchase any articles for the use of the crew, and then only in Mr. HAYNE said if there was any thing certain an emergency, and on the authority of the in the world, it was, that the operation of this commanding officer; for which purchase vouch- bill would be to reduce the compensation of ers will be required. Mr. W. stated that par-pursers one-half. The object of the committee ticular instances had occurred where their emoluments had been supposed to reach, in a year, eight or ten thousand dollars, and that a reduction would excite less general competition for the office.

The bill was then ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.

THURSDAY, April 8.

Pay of Pursers in the Navy.

was to reduce their compensation, and there was no doubt whatever but that the bill would produce that effect. Notwithstanding this, it was very true that the change would produce an additional charge on the Treasury. Mr. H. said he would explain the subject, by stating the operation of the existing and the proposed rule, and then gentlemen could decide which was the better. It has been felt as an evil, of which every one connected with the navy has complained, that the crew have been invariably divested of their entire pay by the pursers, who are authorized to lay up stores of goods, and "who derive the greater part of their compensation by the sales of these goods to the sailors at advanced prices.

The bill "regulating the duties and providing for the compensation of pursers in the navy,' was taken up, and read the third time; and the question being on its passage,

Mr. Foor said that sufficient information had not been imparted to induce him to agree to the passage of this bill. He had examined into the amount of compensation now given to pursers, and he found that this bill proposed an entire change in relation to it. The number of pursers in the service, according to the blue book, is forty-three, and their compensation, at six hundred and sixty dollars per annum, the present allowance, amounts to twenty-eight thousand three hundred and eighty dollars. By this bill the compensation of the purser of a ship of the line is fixed at two thousand five hundred dollars a year, while the captain has but one thousand nine hundred and thirty dollars; and the purser of a frigate is to have two thousand dollars, which also exceeds the pay of a captain, unless he is commanding a squadron. The purser on board of a sloop of war is to have one thousand six hundred dollars, and of any other vessel one thousand three hundred dollars, both of which salaries exceed that of a master commandant, who, under the present regulations, receives but one thousand one hundred dollars. Their pay is proposed to be made greater, also, than that of a lieutenant, who only receives nine hundred and fifty dollars

The United States, as has been observed, allow a compensation to the pursers; but this is not their only compensation; it is the smallest part of it. They are permitted (said Mr. H.) to carry out stores, and sell them at a profit to the ship's company; and although attempts have been made to regulate these profits, they have, on some articles, it is known, amounted to sixty per cent. Under this system, what must be the effect? And he would appeal to all who were connected with the navy, to those who know what effects such causes would produce on the human character. He repeated, that the purser was permitted to lay up the stores, and, to enable him to do so, money was advanced to him by the United States. By the regulations, he is authorized to sell them at a percentage; thus (Mr. H. said) making it his interest to purchase the goods at a high price, and to dispose of as much as possible. He is not dependent on his salary, but on the profits to be derived from the sale of the stores to the sailors, who are induced to purchase so much, and at so high a price, that, at the winding up of their accounts, their pay is exhausted by the purser. The operation of the law (said Mr. H.) was cruel and unjust towards these men, who

APRIL, 1830.]

Pay of Pursers in the Navy.

[SENATE

money and property than any purser, and yet have not a salary of more than one thousand dollars a year. Any person qualified to fill the office of clerk, if a man of probity, was competent to discharge the duties of purser. The situation was much sought after, as the services required were not difficult; and, if the salary was even less, we would find many anxious to accept of it, sufficiently qualified. We hear (said Mr. B.) much talk about reform and retrenchment. He would be glad, he said, to see some of it practised.

were the most liable of any to be imposed upon. | officers handle and are intrusted with more By the existing regulations, the purser is induced to screw from the sailor his last farthing. It was impossible (he said) to avoid frauds, under the present system. The purser had the opportunity and the means to lay up the stores at one price, and charge them at another. Mr. H. said he was not authorized to say that such a practice was general, but one case of this character had been reported by the Navy Department. It appeared on the trial of a purser, at a late court martial, that he had bought goods at one dollar and fifty cents, and sold the same at three dollars and fifty cents. The frauds of the purser were detected, he was found guilty, and cashiered. Abuses had been so interwoven in this system, that they must be practised while it continues. Mr. H. said he understood the profits of a purser, in this way, for a single year, were ten thousand dollars; and this was not improbable, for they were not required to render an account of their sales. That such abuses did prevail, no gentleman would deny. By the bill, the goods are to be purchased by the Government, under the direction of the Navy Department, and furnished to the sailors at an advance of ten per cent. instead of allowing the purser to draw from the crew ten thousand dollars beyond his pay, as in the instance he had alluded to. Why, he asked, appoint pursers at a salary of seven or eight hundred dollars, and pay them the balance out of the pockets of the poor hard-working sailors, who, of all others, required to be defended from imposition? It was an act of common justice, and it was due to our sailors, to their comfort and happiness, to protect them. Mr. H. then recapitulated his arguments of yesterday, and, in conclusion, read an extract from the report of the Navy Commissioners, in recommendation of the measure proposed.

Mr. DICKERSON said he believed reform was necessary with respect to pursers, but he did not think this was the best way to effect it, by increasing their salaries. The abuses were enormous, and, to remedy them, he would suggest, to give to the pursers the salaries they have, and inflict a penalty on them for whatever abuse in office they may be guilty of. Let them sell out the goods at a fair price, and, if they behave dishonestly, discharge or cashier them, but do not raise their salaries. What reason, he asked, was there for raising them to the grade of lieutenants, when not on service? Is it because they have heretofore made too much, and we do not like to reduce them at once? Is it through a desire to save, not the United States, but these officers? If a proper accountability were enforced, the power of the Department would reach them; and he believed their present compensation was amply sufficient without increasing it. Applications for this office were numerous, and it was generally thought that the office of purser is the direct road to fortune. Although believing it to be the intention of the committee to produce a reform of these abuses, yet considering the bill ineffectual for that object, he would vote against its passage; and, as he wished to record his name, he asked for the yeas and nays, and they were ordered.

Mr. Foor said there was no doubt that the emoluments of pursers would, in many instances, be reduced one-half, nor was there Mr. TAZEWELL said he would vote for the bill, any more doubt that their pay, when unem- because it was recommended by the Navy Comployed, would be increased. He admitted the missioners, although he had himself but little evil existed, but he considered the bill not cal- confidence in the success of the experiment. culated to remove it. The saving proposed by He had proposed to alter the rations, and to allowing the purser ten per cent., reminded assimilate them to those of the French or him of the saving made some time ago by the British navy, which, if done, would render this Navy agent in extra postages. He was, how-officer, if at all necessary, merely a commissary, ever, in favor of the first section of the bill, but he objected to that part of the bill increasing the pay of pursers to that of the highest navy officers. As the provisions of the bill would not, in his opinion, correct the evil, and as it would cause an additional expense of thirty odd thousand dollars, if adopted, with an additional commission of ten per cent. to be allowed by the United States, he felt it his duty to oppose

and would make the seamen more secure, and frauds less frequent; but others, more conversant with the matter than he was, recommended this bill, and he was willing to make the experiment. This was not a new plan. Complaints like the present had been formerly made in relation to the issuing of tobacco-a very important article in the consumption of sailors. The pursers had been in the habit of purchasing tobacco at high prices, charging accordingly, and made enormous profits. The Government, to remedy the evil, purchased the tobacco for each ship, and, in most cases, the tobacco, in a few months, became damaged, was condemned, and the purser had to purchase

SENATE.]

Pay of Pursers in the Navy.

[APRIL, 1830.

more. Such will be the case here, he feared; | ments. As to the remedy of the gentleman and lay up stores how and when you will, they will become damaged, and be condemned, and somebody must buy others in their stead, and that somebody will be the purser. But, as navy officers of experience have recommended this measure, he would vote for it, although he had no confidence in it, and but little in his own plan. His proposition was to alter the component parts of the ration, so as to allow the sailors to select what luxuries they thought proper, in lieu of the unnecessarily large quantities they now receive.

Mr. HOLMES said he was disposed to try the experiment. All saw and admitted the evil. He would vote for the bill.

Mr. BENTON opposed the plan proposed, as not calculated to effect its object, although, he was sure, suggested by the best motives. He said, a similar experiment was tried to remedy the abuses and impositions practised towards the Indians by the agents appointed to deliver them their goods, on the part of the United States. That experiment cost the country three hundred thousand dollars, and, notwithstanding, this had lasted for upwards of thirty years. He recommended the practice adopted in the army. The soldiers, he said, were as subject to imposition as sailors. There they have sutlers, and the soldiers may purchase from them, or not, as they please. In reply to the objection which might be urged against this, that sailors being at sea had no choice left, but were obliged to purchase from the pursers, Mr. B. said that the average time which our vessels were absent from a port, was not more than three months-a space of time for which they could, while in port, easily provide themselves in all necessaries.

Mr. HAYNE replied that, under the existing system, all admitted that evils prevailed, and that a remedy was required. When an inquiry is made as to the proper remedy-and he submitted that every gentleman wanted light on the subject-ought we not, he asked, to make application for information to those who are acquainted with the whole system, with the nature and extent of the evils, and who are competent to recommend measures to correct those evils? He thanked gentlemen for giving the Naval Committee credit for good intentions, however they have failed in carrying them into effect; but he had to inform gentlemen that at every step the Naval Committee took, they felt the want of that practical knowledge of the matter which was necessary for their progress, and had to apply for information to those experienced naval officers, the Commissioners of the Navy. It was in conformity with their suggestions and recommendations the provisions of the bill were framed, with the exception of some slight variation. The measures recommended by the gentleman from New Jersey have been resorted to, and have failed; and he would submit whether, on such subjects as this, gentlemen ought not to distrust their judg

from Virginia, (Mr. TAZEWELL,) to alter the rations, he did not think it inconsistent with this bill, and if he (Mr. T.) wished to offer it, there was a bill before the committee to which it could be appended. He would suggest that the President should be authorized to alter the rations from time to time, and that they should not be fixed by laws as they now are. He would not say that the rations of our navy should be the same as that of the British or French. In the British navy, the sailors are forced to drink several quarts of beer a day, to make them red-faced; and if the gentleman would look into the rations of the French navy, he did not think that he (Mr. T.) would consent to put our sailors on such and so small an allowance.

Mr. H. again stated the benefits which would result to the sailors, and to the United States, from the adoption of this bill, and then proceeded to notice the objections of Mr. BENTON; who had remarked that the experiment proposed had been tried with the Indians, and had failed. There was a wide difference, (said Mr. H.;) there was no analogy whatever between the two cases. In this bill guards are proposed which will effectually prevent any abuses. The supplies are to be laid up on requisition, on the order of the Navy Department, and will be subject to inspection. An invoice of them is to be given to the commander of the ship and to the purser, who is to give a receipt for them, when confided to his care. He is then held responsible for all, and has to keep regular accounts with the officers and crew. It is thus impossible that the stores will not be laid in well, and that any frauds or imposition can take place. The situation of sailors and soldiers was, he said, quite different. The soldier may purchase from the sutler or not, as he pleases, as he has another vender to resort to; but the sailor has no such chance-there is no competi tion at sea-the purser has all in his power. When on shore he may act as the soldier. This bill may not (said Mr. H.) succeed; but as those most skilled in such matters advise that it will remedy an existing evil, the committee thought it their duty to lay it before the Senate.

Mr. Foor said that the bill would cause an increase not only of the expense of pursers, but an increase of expenses, exclusive of that, to the United States. If sugar is laid up here at twelve and half cents a pound, and the vessel sails for the West Indies, there sugar of the same quality can be had for two and a half cents a pound. Slops, as they are called, can be purchased in the Mediterranean much cheaper than here; yet by each of these the United States will be a loser. He suggested to fix the premium at ten per cent. on issues, and to let the compensation of pursers stand as it now is.

Mr. SMITH, of Maryland, said that he understood the chairman of the committee (Mr. HAYNE) to state that the money was advanced by Government in long voyages. Suppose, then,

APRIL, 1830.]

Removal of the Indians.

[SENATE.

that a vessel goes to the Pacific for three years, | river Mississippi, was resumed in Committee and that Government advances thirty thousand of the Whole, with the amendment offered by dollars, the interest on that sum would be equal Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. to the purser's pay. In reply to what had been said by Mr. BENTON, Mr. S. said he was correct in stating that the general time of a voyage at sea was three months, but not so in stating that all a sailor had to do when he arrived in port, was to go ashore and buy what he wanted. The sailor has not money: he takes none to sea with him, and if he did, (said Mr. S.,) he would throw it overboard, likely. But suppose Jack asks the purser for ten dollars; whether to go on shore for a frolic or buy a coat; the purser refuses him. Jack then says, I want a pair of boots. A sailor (said Mr. S.) never wants boots; but this case had, to his knowledge, occurred. Jack, of course, gets the boots; he is charged fifteen dollars for them; he goes on shore and sells them for two dollars, all which he spends. This (said Mr. S.) is in reply to the remedy suggested by the gentleman from Missouri, and this would be the result of it. He said he would vote for the bill.

The question was then put on the passage of the bill, and decided in the affirmative, by yeas and nays, 34 to 10.

The Indians.

The Senate resumed the bill to provide for an exchange of lands with the Indians residing in any of the States or Territories, and for their removal west of the Mississippi.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN moved to add to the bill the following:

"Sec. 9. That, until the said tribes or nations shall choose to remove, as by this act is contemplated, they shall be protected in their present possessions, and in the enjoyment of all their rights of territory and government, as heretofore exercised and enjoyed, from all interruptions and encroachments."

"Sec. 10. That, before any removal shall take

place of any of the said tribes or nations, and before any exchange or exchanges of land be made as aforesaid, that the rights of any such tribes or nations, in the premises, shall be stipulated for, secured, and guarantied, by treaty or treaties, as heretofore made."

Mr. McKINLEY then renewed the amendment which he heretofore offered to the 4th section, in the following words:

"And upon the payment of such valuation, the improvements so valued and paid for shall pass to the United States; and possession shall not afterwards be permitted to any of the same tribe."

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN addressed the Senate about two hours, in continuation of his speech heretofore commenced, when he gave way for an adjournment.

FRIDAY, April 9.

Removal of the Indians.

The bill to provide for an exchange of lands with the Indians residing in any of the States or territories, and for their removal west of the

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN said: I proceed to the discussion of those principles which, in my humble judgment, fully and clearly sustain the claims of the Indians to all their political and civil rights, as by them asserted. And here, I insist that, by immemorial possession, as the original tenants of the soil, they hold a title beyond and superior to the British crown and her colonies and to all adverse pretensions of our confederation and subsequent Union. God, in his providence, planted these tribes on this Western continent, so far as we know, before Great Britain herself had a political existence. I believe, sir, it is not now seriously denied that the Indians are men, endowed with kindred faculties and powers with ourselves; that they have a place in human sympathy, and are justly entitled to a share in the common bounties of a benignant Providence. And, with this conceded, I ask in what code of the law of nations, or by what process of abstract deduction, their rights have been extinguished?

Where is the decree or ordinance that has stripped these early and first lords of the soil? Sir, no record of such measure can be found. And I might triumphantly rest the hopes of these feeble fragments of once great nations upon this impregnable foundation. However mere human policy, or the law of power, or the tyrant's plea of expediency, may have found it convenient at any or in all times to recede from the unchangeable principles of eternal justice, no argument can shake the political maxim, that, where the Indian always has been, he enjoys an absolute right still to be, in the free exercise of his own modes of thought, government, and conduct.

In the light of natural law, can a reason for which is my own? If I use it for hunting, may a distinction exist in the mode of enjoying that another take it because he needs it for agriculture? I am aware that some writers have, by a system of artificial reasoning, endeavored to justify, or rather excuse the encroachments inate these abstractions the law of nations, and made upon Indian territory; and they denomin this ready way the question is despatched. Sir, as we trace the sources of this law, we find its authority to depend either upon the conventions or common consent of nations. when, permit me to inquire, were the Indian

And

tribes ever consulted on the establishment of such a law? Who ever represented them or their interests in any Congress of nations, to confer upon the public rules of intercourse, and the proper foundations of dominion and property? The plain matter of fact is, that all these partial doctrines have resulted from the selfish plans and pursuits of more enlightened nations; and it is not matter for any great wonder, that they should so largely partake of mercenary and exclusive spirit toward the claims of the Indians.

a