should be sent, and therefore he was willing to vote for an appropriation to carry that desirable object into effect. [SENATE He was also, was the impression in other quarters. Mr. LEIGH said he should not, any more than his colleague, indulge the presumption that the President would wilfully violate the constitution. But he should indulge the presumption that the Executive understood the constitution very differently from the honorable Senator and himself, and was of opinion that it was in his pow-pared to say that any nomination would be made? If er, in the recess of the Senate, to fill a vacancy which happened in a former recess. And he (Mr. L.) indulged the presumption, for the reason that the President had done the very deed, (which some honorable Senators wished to prevent in future,) for he had sent Mr. Livingston to France, two or three years ago, in the recess. Now, it was his (Mr. L's) opinion, right or wrong, that the President had no authority, under the circumstances of the case, to make that appointment in the recess; but the President did not so understand the constitution. Mr. L. should, for that very reason, vote against the appropriation; and he should vote for it in no form or shape in which the President could thereby be enabled to violate the constitution, though it might not be a violation according to the President's interpretation of it. He should be willing to vote for an appropriation, with a proviso that no money should be paid unless the minister was appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. He never would give his vote for this appointment under any other circumstances, seeing that the President differed from him in his construction of the constitution, which completely surrendered the concurrent power of the Senate. Mr. CALHOUN said that he was not in the Senate when the debate commenced. He asked if the President had desired this appropriation? Or had he expressed a wish to make any appointment? Mr. WEBSTER replied that the committee had no intimation of the desire of the President but the simple estimates from the Department. As he had before said, there were some appropriations made for chargés, on the understanding that they would be nominated. But on the subject of a minister to Great Britain, the committee had no information but that which the bill indicated. The bill, as it went to the committee, contained an appropriation for outfit and salary for a minister and secretary of legation for England. The amendment under consideration corrected the bill in this particular. It struck out the outfit and salary for minister and secretary of legation, and continued the chargé d'affaires. From the omission of an appropriation for a chargé, it was presumed to be the settled purpose of the Executive to send a minister, as an appropriation for that purpose was inserted. The only question for the Senate to decide was, if it was proper for the President to send a nomination to the Senate, if he designed to make an appointment before the next session. The committee had kept back the bill to the last moment, chiefly for the purpose of enabling him to do so. Last week he had called the attention of the committee to all the other parts of the bill, and they had waited since, in the hope that a nomination would be made. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. TYLER] was willing to appropriate, while he avowed the opinion that, if the President kept back the nomination, and sent a minister after the session, it would be an unconstitutional act. Many others took a similar view. The sole ground on which they desired the appropriation to remain in the bill, was that the President would send in a nomination to-day or tomorrow. He (Mr. W.) had never known any instance where the President had thought it to be his duty to keep his purpose so profoundly secret that it had not escaped to a member of either House. He presumed that the President had no intention to nominate. Such, Mr. CALHOUN remarked that the Senate was about to make an appropriation in order that a minister might be appointed by the President in the recess, for not a single friend of the Executive had risen in his place and stated whether the President intended sending in a nomination to the Senate. The Senator from Virginia had stated that the President's making a nomination at this session was a question of duty. Yes, it was his duty-a high constitutional duty--to send to this body his nomination. He had only to look at the state of our foreign relations, particularly with France, to be convinced (if he required any convincing) of the great importance of our having a minister of the first grade at the court of of St. James. The duty of the Senate was to protect its own power. There had been a war against it, which was calculated to destroy it, had it not been composed of strong materials, of firm, unbending, and fearless men, acting in a righteous cause. He concurred in the remark of the Senator from Massachusetts, that he would rather risk this appropriation bill, and every other bill, than make an appropriation under present circum stances. Mr. SHEPLEY observed that it was not his purpose to enter largely into the discussion. The State which he had the honor in part to represent had a very powerful interest in this question. It could not but be remembered by the Senate that that State had interests of a most vital character, and on which she felt most deeply, to be treated of in our negotiations with England, and which had in some measure been for a long time neglected. She would have great cause of regret and complaint that, because of a mere difference of opinion between the Executive and Senate, no minister was appointed to a court where it was so necessary that a question deeply affecting her should be settled. What had the Senate to act upon? What evidence was before them that the President would not make the nomination before the close of the session? He had listened with great attention to the debate, and he had heard no one authorized to say that no nomination would be made to the Senate at this session. They had heard, it was true, that none would be made; but what was the evidence? A bill was before the Senate making appropriations for the diplomatic intercourse of the United States, and a motion was made to strike out the salary and outfit of the minister to England. But would that prove that the President did not mean to make the nomination? He was still disposed to think that what he so much desired to see would happen; that is, that the President would make the appointment before the close of the session, and he would therefore vote for the appropriation. He regretted very much that the idea had been thrown out that no minister would be appointed. Mr. TYLER doubted very much the propriety of the amendment. An appropriation for the salary and outfit of a minister to England was to be made, provided the President did not violate the constitution. Holding the opinion, as some Senators did, that he would send a He minister to England in the recess, the amendment was certainly equivalent to a declaration of that sort. (Mr. T.) should deem the phraseology of the amendment improper. The views of the Senator from Massachusetts on this subject were very strong, and they would have undoubtedly much weight with the public. Although, as had been said, almost the last hour of the session had come, yet he was disposed to wait till almost the last minute to give the President an opportunity of sending in his nomination. He did not wish to furnish the Executive with an excuse, but he wished to prevent him from having to state in his defence for not sending in his nomination, that the Senate would not agree to make an appropriation unless he had first sent it to them. Did it become the Senate to insinuate such a thing as that he intended to violate the constitution? When he violated it, then it was time enough to act. But to anticipate a violation, and announce it in defence of that Senate's action, he did not know that such a thing was ever done in this country or any other. He extremely regretted that he could not agree with his honorable friends on this important matter. The course which he had taken was one of duty, and he could not swerve from it. Mr. WEBSTER said that of their votes the Senate kept a record, but of their voices they unfortunately kept none. He could not make any distinction between this and the French mission. By making this appropriation without the amendment, we are, said he, inviting the President to make the appointment in the recess. He cannot, said Mr. W., listen to our arguments, and of our protests he would be very apt to treat them as we have done his. Mr. CLAY said it now appeared, from the admission of the Senator from Maine, that his State had a deep interest in our being represented at the court of Great Britain by a minister. He (Mr. C.) had known this for a long time, and with some surprise he had seen the gentleman sitting there the whole session quietly with that knowledge, this being the very first occasion that he had ever uttered one word on the subject. If at any time the gentleman had got up in his place and expressed his regret that we had no minister at the British court, and had made any proposition looking to our be ing represented there, he would have found him (Mr. C.) entirely concurring with him in support of the measure. It was now only about eight hours to the close of the session, and he did not think it likely a nomination would be made in that short time, when one had not been made in a session of three months. [Mr. KING, of Alabama, observed that there were twenty-four hours of the session left.] Mr. CLAY Continued. The gentleman might put it thirty-four hours if he pleased; he was not particular; it was sufficient for him that he did not believe that a nomination would be made. By refusing this appropriation, he should not, as the gentleman from Virginia strongly says, be presupposing that the President would violate the constitution. The gentleman did not seem to have attended to the attitude taken by the Executive with regard to foreign appointments. A minister was sent to England three or four years ago, during the recess; since then a minister was sent to France during the recess; and he had no doubt that a minister would be again sent to England during the recess, without the constitutional concurrence of the Senate, if the amendment should not be adopted. It did appear to him a little extraordinary in the Senator from Virginia, knowing as he did that the President held ideas dissimilar from his own with regard to executive power, that he should oppose the amendment, and knowing, too, that the President had repeatedly made such appointments during the recess of the Senate. He should have supposed that the amendmen [MARCH 2, 1835. would meet with the concurrence of every Senator, and that it would be supported particularly by the Senator from Maine, as it would enable him to have a minister at the court of Great Britain, who was so much wanted there to attend to the great interests of his State, unless the gentleman preferred to have one without the authority and concurrence of the Senate. Mr. KING, of Alabama, could not vote for the amendment proposed by the Senator from Massachusetts. He believed, for one, that the President should not, except in extreme cases, appoint ministers without the advice and consent of the Senate. But extreme cases might arise, in which it was necessary for the President to make appointments without consulting the Senate. It was impossible for gentlemen to shut their eyes to the fact that many extreme cases had arisen, in which such appointments had been made. Mr. Rush was sent to England during Mr. Monroe's administration, and Mr. Adams called Mr. Rush home and sent Mr. Barbour in his place. There were other cases. Mr. King, of New York, was appointed in the recess and sent abroad. What did he do? In a short time he came home, and left a chargé in his place, who received the outfit and salary. There were various cases, running through the history of the Government, not necessary to recapitulate, in which this power had been exercised. For himself, be was disposed to narrow down this power as much as possible. But as extreme cases might arise, in which it would be necessary to exercise this power, he could not, by his vote, say that the power should in no case be exercised. This appropriation was only to change a chargé for a full minister. You have made, said Mr. K., an appropriation for a chargé; and, the interest of the country requiring that we should have a full minister at the British court, this appropriation was only changing the grade of our representative there. In this case, he expressed his regret (he did so, and spoke it honestly) that no nomination of a minister to England had been made before that time, as the appointment ought not to be made but by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. He spoke this honestly, without fear of the administration; and he did hope that the President had friends who would advise him to make the nomination before the close of the session. Hoping that this course would be pursued, he was prepared to give the President the means of sending a minister to England; but if he believed that the President would make the appointment in the recess, he would vote against making the appropriation. As to the amendment, he must vote against it, for it seemed to him like saying that one of the co-ordinate branches of this Government should be guarded by another. He did hope that the appropria tion would be made, with the understanding (which all of them had) that the appointment would be made before the end of the session, and not made during the recess, in violation of the constitution. Mr. CALHOUN said that the amendment was absolutely necessary to guard their construction of the constitution; especially so, as the Executive construed that instrument differently from themselves. Mr. TYLER did not mean to be the champion of the administration on that floor. It would be recollected that a minister to England was sent about two years ago to supply a vacancy which occurred during the recess, and the President acted properly in sending one. He need scarcely say that the nomination was rejected. And, with regard to the French mission, what happened' Why, Mr. Rives had signified his intention to return to the United States, on account of ill health, and the Presi dent appointed Mr. Livingston, in the recess of the Sen. ate, to supply his place; and he accordingly departed for France before Mr. Rives had left that country. When MARCH 2, 1835.] Convention with Spain--General Appropriation Bill. Congress again assembled, the Senate took up the subject, and it underwent much discussion. On one side it was contended that here was an anticipated vacancy, and that the President was bound to make his nomination during the sitting of the Senate. He (Mr. T.) thought the reverse, because Mr. Rives might have changed his mind. His plea for returning was bad health. The nomination of Mr. Livingston was confirmed. Mr. CLAY would not do the honorable Senator from Maine the injustice to say that he, on any occasion, voted against the administration; but what he (Mr. C.) did say was, that, as the gentleman's own State was deeply interested in the appointment of a minister to England, any proposition to effect that desirable object would have, he had no doubt, his hearty support. Did the Senator believe that any nomination would be sent to the Senate during the present session? Did any man here believe it? He trusted that those who possessed any influence, particularly with the other branch, would employ it to produce such an object. Ninety-two days had elapsed, and not a word had the Senate beard about the nomination in question. He had looked all around that chamber for some days past, but not a word had he heard escape the lips of a single Senator as to the intention of the President to send in his nomination. Thirty-four and a half hours only remained to the present Congress, and yet no nomination. Well, nous verrons. Mr. BLACK did not believe the insertion of the proposed proviso in the bill an insinuation that the President purposed violating the constitution. If the Executive were permitted, by silent acquiescence of the Senate, to make a practice of allowing the session to pass without laying his nomination before it, he might, if he chose, keep a man in office as long as he was disposed, without the consent of the Senate, and thus would the appointing power which belonged to it be rendered nu gatory. Mr. WEBSTER then moved to amend the clause so as to provide that the outfit and salary should not be paid exce pt to a minister appointed by and with the ad vice and consent of the Senate first had and obtained. Mr. W. asked for the yeas and nays; which were ordered. After some further discussion, the question was taken and decided as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Bell, Bibb, Black, Calhoun, Clay, Clayton, Ewing, Frelinghuysen, Goldsborough, Hendricks, Kent, Knight, Leigh, Mangum, Moore, Naudain, Poindexter, Porter, Prentiss, Preston, Robbins, Silsbee, Smith, Southard, Swift, Tomlinson, Waggaman, Web ster-28. NAYS-Messrs. Benton, Brown, Buchanan, Cuthbert, Grundy, Hill, Kane, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Linn, McKean, Morris, Robinson, Ruggles, Shepley, Tallmadge, Tipton, Tyler, White, Wright-20. So the amendment was agreed to. Mr. EWING proposed to strike out the item for an outfit for a minister to Spain, and asked the yeas and nays; which were ordered. Mr. CLAYTON was also in favor of striking out, on the ground of there being no vacancy to require an outfit. Mr. CLAY said, as a proviso was introduced already into the bill which would show the President the opinion of the Senate in regard to the right of appointment during the recess of Congress, he was in favor of retaining the sum. Mr. CLAYTON then read a letter from the Secretary of State, which had just been handed him, stating that the present minister to Spain had asked and obtained leave to return. Mr. C. said it was sufficient. Mr. EWING then withdrew his motion. Mr. WRIGHT offered an amendment to the section [SENATE. Mr. CLAY, from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, by unanimous consent, reported a bill from the House to carry into effect the convention between the United States and Spain, with an amendment. The amendment provides that the distribution of the fund shall be made by the Attorney General instead of a special commission. The amendment was agreed to, and ordered to be engrossed. The bill was then read the third time and passed. On motion of Mr. PORTER, the 17th joint rule, which prevents bills being sent to the President on the last day of the session, was suspended. The Senate then took a recess until five o'clock. EVENING SESSION. CASE OF R. LAWRENCE. Mr. SMITH, from the select committee appointed upon the letter of the Hon. GEORGE POINDEXTER, made a report at length, concluding with a resolution that not a shade of suspicion exists that Mr. POINDEXTER was in any way concerned, directly or indirectly, in the late attempted assassination of the President. The report was read, and, the question being on its adoption, Mr. WEBSTER asked the yeas and nays; which were ordered, and are as follows: YEAS--Messrs. Bell, Bibb, Black, Buchanan, Calhoun, Clay, Clayton, Cuthbert, Ewing, Frelinghuysen, Goldsborough, Grundy, Hendricks, Hill, Kane, Kent, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Knight, Leigh, Linn, Mangum, Moore, Morris, Naudain, Porter, Preston, Robbins, Robinson, Ruggles, Shepley, Silsbee, Smith, Southard, Swift, Tallmadge, Tipton, Tomlinson, Tyler, Webster, White, Wright-42. NAYS-None. On motion of Mr. SMITH, the report and accompanying documents were ordered to be printed. GENERAL APPROPRIATION BILL. The Senate then resumed the consideration of the general appropriation bill. The amendment offered by Mr. WRIGHT was still further discussed by Messrs. WRIGHT, BUCHANAN, SILSBEE, KING of Alabama, and CLÁY. Mr. WRIGHT asked the yeas and nays on the adoption of the amendment; which were ordered, and are as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Benton, Black, Brown, Buchanan, Cuthbert, Frelinghuysen, 'Grundy, Hill, Kane, Kent, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Linn, McKean, Morris, Poindexter, Preston, Robinson, Ruggles, Shepley, Tallmadge, White, Wright-23. NAYS-Messrs. Bell, Bibb, Calhoun, Clay, Clayton, Ewing, Goldsborough, Hendricks, Knight, Leigh, Mangum, Moore, Naudain, Porter, Robbins, Silsbee, Smith, Southard, Swift, Tipton, Tomlinson, Webster --22. So the amendment was agreed to. The bill was then reported to the Senate. Mr. CLAY asked the yeas and nays on receiving the amendment offered by Mr. WRIGHT and adopted in Committee of the Whole; which were ordered, and are as follows: YEAS--Messrs. Benton, Black, Brown, Buchanan, SENATE.] Expunging Resolution--Delaware Breakwater--Pay of the Navy. Cuthbert, Frelinghuysen, Grundy, Hill, Kane, Kent, NAYS--Messrs. Bell, Bibb, Calhoun, Clay, Clayton, The bill was then, on motion of Mr. WEBSTER, still further amended, by incorporating into it the provisions of a bill affording relief to certain officers and soldiers of the Virginia line, and of a bill to construct a road from Lyme creek to Chattahoochie, and of a bill to confirm certain land titles in Missouri; which bills had passed the Senate on Saturday evening too late to be sent to the House. The bill was then ordered to be engrossed, and was read a third time and passed. EXPURGATION OF THE JOURNAL. Mr. PRESTON moved to take up the resolution of fered by Mr. BENTON for expunging from the journal of the Senate the resolution condemning the President; on which question the yeas and nays were ordered, and are as follows: YEAS--Messrs. Benton, Brown, Buchanan, Calhoun, Clay, Clayton, Cuthbert, Hill, Kane, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, McKean, Mangum, Moore, Preston, Robinson, Ruggles, Shepley, Tallmadge, White, Wright -21. NAYS-Messrs. Bibb, Black, Ewing, Goldsborough, Grundy, Hendricks, Kent, Knight, Leigh, Linn, Naudain, Poindexter, Porter, Prentiss, Robbins, Smith, Southard, Swift, Tipton, Tomlinson, Waggaman, Webster--22. So the motion was lost. DELAWARE BREAKWATER. Mr. SILSBEE, from the Committee on Commerce, reported the bill from the House making appropriations for the Delaware breakwater, and for certain harbors, for the year 1835. On Mr. SILSBEE'S motion, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, as in Committee of the Whole, and the amendments having been gone through with, Mr. TIPTON offered an amendment appropriating $10,000 to be applied, under the direction of the Secretary of War, to the construction of a harbor at Michigan city, mouth of Trail creek, on Lake Michigan. Mr. T. said he felt it his duty to propose this amendment to the bill. He made a similar proposition last session; but it failed, as he understood, in consequence of no survey having been made of the proposed harbor. A survey, however, was made last fall, by an officer of the engineer corps, whose report was referred some weeks ago to the Committee on Commerce; and Mr. T. said he was informed by the honorable chairman [Mr. SILSBEE] that the committee would not consent to amend this bill, as it provided only for the prosecution of works already commenced. That there were similar propositions before them then, that the committee determined to attach to a bill that was expected from the House, providing for new works. He deemed it unfortunate that he had to encounter the unanimous opposition of the committee; it might defeat his proposition, but would not prevent him from doing his duty. He was told last year this harbor was not surveyed; and now, to wait till a bill came from the other House. Did not honorable gentlemen know that, at this late hour, no other bill need be expected from the other House? Mr. T. said he heard calls from all sides to withdraw the amendment, and he would do so if he could consistently with duty; but he could not, and would not, surrender [MARCH 2, 1835. the rights of those he had the honor in part to represent here. He begged honorable Senators to recullect that Indiana had no other harbors to improve but this. Few States were thus situated. Turn to your statute book, and you will find that no session of Congress passes without appropriating money for every other State. What has been done for Indiana? We ask nothing as a boon, but claim this appropriation as a matter of right. Harbors have been constructed at every creek and inlet on the Eastern seaboard, on Lake Erie, and almost all other lakes. This town, Michigan city, although new, is a place of immense business. Many of its citizens are business men, possessing large capitals, and have embarked in commercial enterprises with great spirit. Between 60 and 100 lake vessels arrived at this port last summer. This number will no doubt be doubled the next season. The goods consumed in the northern part of Indiana, and a part of Illinois and Michigan, will be landed at this point as soon as the harbor is in a condition to protect the commerce of the place. Appropriations are made each year to construct a harbor at Chicago, 50 miles west of Trail creek, and another is also expected for the St. Joseph's river, forty-five miles northwest of our harbor. Mr. T. said he voted with pleasure for the construction of harbors, and would not now complain, could he obtain what is just for his own State. Every dollar laid out to improve harbors on Lake Michigan, turns the business to those which are most secure; thus, by improving that at Chicago, you substract from the business and the value of our property at Michigan city. He wished to be liberal to his neighbors, but could not consent to vote for others, to the neglect of his own constituents. Having presented the amendment and his views, he asked the yeas and nays, in order that, by recording his vote, his constituents might see that he had done his duty. If voted down, he would yield to the decision of the Senate as gravely as any Senator could, who felt that a portion of his constituents were operated upon unjustly. The yeas and nays were ordered, and the amendment was disagreed to by the following vote: YEAS-Messrs. Benton, 'Black, Goldsborough, Hendricks, Kane, Kent, Linn, Robinson, Tipton, Tomlinson, Webster, White-12. NAYS-Messrs. Bibb, Buchanan, Clayton, Ewing, Hill, King of Georgia, Leigh, Mangum, Naudain, Poindexter, Prentiss, Ruggles, Shepley, Silsbee, Southard, Swift, Tallmadge, Tyler-18. PAY OF THE NAVY. The bill to regulate the pay of the navy of the United States coming up, Mr. HILL said if the bill for raising the salaries of the officers of the navy should pass, he would consider it to be one of the most severe blows ever inflicted on the American navy. As the sincere friend of that navy, he hoped the Senate would pause before they inflicted this blow. There is a point beyond which the people will not go; they are willing amply to remunerate every man in their employ, to the full amount of his services; but they never will consent that deception shall be palmed upon them. I have (said Mr. H.) before me tables of the pay of the officers of the French and the British navy, and I will present them in contrast with the pay of the officers of the American navy, as it stands before the passage of this law. Pay in the French Navy. Maritime prefects, per annum (com- Francs. Dollars. 21,600 4,050 00 18,000 3,375 00 |