FEBRUARY, 1844.] Death of Judge Porter. tion of our laws. The events of his life, and the business of this day, show this title to citizenship to be as valid in our America as it was in the great republic of antiquity. I borrow the thought, not the language of Cicero, in his pleading for the poet Archias, when I place the citizen who becomes so by law and choice, on an equal footing with the citizen who becomes so by chance. And, in the instance now before us, we may say that our adopted citizen has repaid us for the liberality of our laws; that he has added to the stock of our national character by the contributions which he has brought to it in the purity of his private life-the eminence of his public services-the ardor of his patriotism, and the elegant productions of his mind. And here let me say-and I say it with pride and satisfaction-our deceased brother Senator loved and admired his adopted country, with a love and admiration increasing with his age, and with his better knowledge of the countries of the Old World. A few years ago, and after he had obtained great honor and fortune in this country, he returned on a visit to his native land, and to the continent of Europe. It was an occasion of honest exultation for the orphan emigrant boy to return to the land of his fathers, rich in the goods of this life, and clothed with the honors of the American Senate. But the visit was a melancholy one to him. His soul sickened at the state of his fellow man in the Old World, (I had it from his own lips;) and he returned from that visit with stronger feelings than ever in favor of his adopted country. New honor awaited him here-that of a second election to the American Senate. But of this he was not permitted to taste; and the proceedings of this day announce his second brief elevation to this body, and his departure from it through the gloomy portals of death, and the radiant temple of enduring fame. The question was put, and the resolutions were unanimously agreed to; and The Senate (according to previous agreement) adjourned till Monday next. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. FRIDAY, February 2. The journal of yesterday was read and approved. Mr. THOMPSON announced the arrival of his colleague, Mr. TILGHMAN H. TUCKER; who after being sworn, took his seat. The Death of Senator Porter. The Speaker directed the Clerk to read the communication from the Senate in relation to the death of Senator PORTER; and it was read accordingly. Mr. SLIDELL then rose, and spoke as follows: Mr. Speaker: The Message which we have just received, communicating the intelligence of the [28TH CONG. death of a Senator of Louisiana, devolves upon me, as one of the representatives of that State, in conformity with an established and salutary usage, the duty of making some brief observations on the character and history of the deceased. It would, perhaps, be sufficient to say that ALEXANDER PORTER had twice been chosen to discharge the august functions of representing the sovereignty of one of the States of this great confederacy. Constituted as the Senate of the United States has heretofore always been, (and as I trust it ever will be,) of the men most distinguished throughout the Union for intelligence, virtue, and patriotism, this fact alone affords his most emphatic eulogium. But in that body, among the very élite of the nation-the intellectual giants of the land-ALEXANDER PORTER Occupied a conspicuous place. He offered a striking illustration of the happy working of our free institutions, for he had attained this proud eminence unaided by any adventitious advantages of fortune, connection, or education. He was the son of an Irish clergyman, who died upon the scaffold, a martyr in the cause of liberty, in that memorable struggle which, ending unsuccessfully, has been stigmatized as a rebellion; but which, had it resulted differently, would have been recognized as a glorious revolution-for all revolutions are but fortunate rebellions. The orphan child was brought to the United States by an uncle, at a very tender age. He received in Tennessee such an education as could then be obtained at a common country school; and while attending during the day to the business of a village shop, he acquired at night, in the hours devoted by others to amusement or to sleep, such simple rudiments of law as he could glean from a few elementary books loaned to him by those who felt an interest in the young student. With this scanty outfit of learning, he, soon after arriving at manhood, about the year 1809, emigrated to Louisiana, and established himself in the practice of law, in the western part of the State. The best evidence of the rapidity with which he established himself in popular favor and consideration in a land of strangers, was his election in 1811, as a member of the convention for framing the constitution of the State. He soon attained distinction in his profession; and after some years of arduous and well-recompensed devotion to its practice, he accepted a seat on the bench of the supreme court of Louisiana, the reported decisions of which, during his fifteen years' service, attest the industry and ability which he brought to the discharge of his judicial duties-duties requiring, from the peculiar character of our jurisprudence, a greater range of legal studies than in any of our sister States. He was intimately acquainted with the Roman, French, and Spanish law, and recurred with familiarity to the original sources of information in those languages. He resigned his judgeship about the year 1830, and was soon after elected to the Senate of the United States. 1ST SESS.] hear me. United States Schooner Grampus. Mr. VANCE Seconded the resolutions, in some pertinent remarks. The resolutions, in the usual terms, were then agreed to; and The House adjourned. [FEBRUARY, 1844. His career while there is familiar to all who | Florida, or caught the seeds of disease there His health became so feeble as to of which they afterwards died. He referred induce him for several years to withdraw from to the gallant Tennessee and Alabama volunpublic life; but he was again elected to the teers, so many of whom were lost in that ser. national Senate at the last session of the Legis- vice, and particularly cited the case of two comlature of Louisiana. The disease which had panies of Alabama volunteers, who were maslong been preying upon his body, without im- sacred almost to a man. Were the relatives of pairing the energy of his mind, assuming greater these men entitled to no more sympathy and intensity, he was unable to take his seat; and favor than those of the officers and soldiers of he died on the 13th ultimo, at his plantation, the Grampus, because they fell on the land, inafter a protracted and painful illness. ALEX- stead of being lost at sea? If the bill was to ANDER PORTER was a learned lawyer, an elo-be passed on the principles of justice, did not quent advocate, and an upright judge. His justice as well apply to those who died in the extensive and varied reading, his great collo- service of their country on land as at sea? quial powers, ready wit, and social disposition, Such a bill as this never could be passed in fitted him to appear to advantage in the most any of the State legislatures where, the money brilliant and refined society. His temperament to provide for it being collected by direct was ardent, and he was zealous in his political levies, the people would see and know for creed; but he did not permit political differ- what purpose they were taxed. It was in ences to affect his relations in private life. consequence only of indirect taxation that such Widely differing from him on all great party appropriations could be made. He was not questions, I have been for many years honored unfriendly to the navy, and he would tell by his intimacy; and knowing him as I did, I gentlemen that if they wished it to be kept can with confidence assert, that the manifesta- up, they must not ask for appropriations like tions of respect which I am now about to pro- this. He was as charitably disposed as any pose, could not be bestowed more fitly. one on that floor, and as ready to contribute to the relief of the sufferers out of his private pocket; but there was a stern principle of justice that governed him, and under which he could not consent to distribute the people's money for unauthorized purposes. One of his greatest objections to this bill was that the money appropriated by it must be raised by taxation, and if it was passed, it would be taking the bread out of the mouths of all the indigent widows and orphans in the country, to give it to widows and orphans of a more favored class. This he looked upon as a species of legalized agrarianism, and agrarianism of the worst kind. To illustrate the great injustice of bestowing bounties on one class, while others were oppressed by the severest taxation, Mr. B. cited the case of a poor widow, who was lately frozen to death, almost in sight of the Capitol, for the want of a blanket to protect her from the inclemency of the weather; and which, in consequence of the high price which the system of protection put on the article, she was unable to procure. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. LEVY) the other day attempted to get in an appropriation for the widows and orphans of the officers and seamen of the Sea Gull, whose claims, he said, were as strong as those provided for in the bill before the House. Suppose the gentleman succeeded, and suppose other gentlemen succeeded in getting appropriations for the widows and orphans of those who fell in Florida, and of those killed in the Dade massacre: where was it to end? There would be no end but in the discretion of Congress, and an amount of expense would be incurred that would exhaust the treasury. He wished to avoid all unnecessary and unauthorized expenditure of the people's money; to levy no more taxes than would be sufficient for an SATURDAY, February 3. United States Schooner Grampus. The CHAIR announced that the first business before the committee was the bill for the relief of the widows and orphans of the officers, seamen, and marines of the United States schooner Grampus, and that the amendment pending when the bill was last up, was that offered by Mr. BELSER to strike out that part of the bill which provides a gratuity of six months' pay to the relatives over and above the pay actually due at the time of the loss of the vessel. Mr. BELSER, after a few preliminary remarks, said that he was one of those who believed that they had no right whatever to appropriate the public money in this way. He differed with the gentleman from Ohio, (Mr. SCHENCK,) who took the ground that when a man entered into the naval service of his country, a contract was formed with the government that his widow and orphans should be provided for. He contended, on the contrary, that there was no such contract, and that when a man entered into the naval service, he did so with reference to the dangers of the service; and that he had no right to expect any other reward than the pay he contracted for. He wished to know why the relatives of those who were lost in the Grampus had more claim to the bounty of Congress than the widows and orphans of those who fell in battle in VOL. XV.-5 FEBRUARY, 1844.] 21st Rule. [28TH CONG. economical administration of the government, | ard; but he desired first of all, that gentlemen and for the government to be just before it was generous; and these were the reasons which induced him to offer his amendment. Mr. ATKINSON observed that he had listened very attentively to the objections which gentlemen had been pleased to urge against the bill under consideration. He had attended most closely to the remarks of the gentleman from Alabama, (Mr. BELSER,) because he stood on this floor professing to be governed by as strict principles of economy as that gentleman or any other on the floor. He was the representative of a people economical in their private affairs; and who always evinced their admiration for those public servants who had gone for an economical administration both of the Federal and State governments. But this people, though economical, were just and generous; and he acted in accordance to their views when he gave his support to this bill. With a view to inform himself on the subject, and feeling a deep interest in the widows and orphans of the officers and seamen of the ill-fated Grampus, he had examined the proceedings of Congress, from the time when Mr. Jefferson came into office up to the present time, for the purpose of ascertaining if this was the only case of the kind; and he found that, in cases not one-half as strong as this, Congress had made appropriations for the widows and orphans of those lost in their country's naval service. Mr. A. did not regard this case as one of bounty, or of charity, as other gentlemen did; but he looked upon it as one of strict justice, founded on contract as a debt justly due to the heirs of those who have gone down into the briny deep. To prove this, he would call the attention of the House to the various acts of Congress that had been passed for the benefit of those who had served their country in the navy. Here Mr. A. read from the public documents a list of the acts giving rewards to naval officers, and providing for the widows and orphans of such as have fallen in the service, for the purpose of showing that those who enter the navy do so under the implied contract that their services will be properly considered by the government, and that their widows and orphans will be provided for, should they be lost in the service. Mr. HALE replied, and asked the House to look at the condition and circumstances of the mountaineers of New Hampshire, and the citizens of the United States in other parts of the Union, who paid for the splendor of the cabins of the ships of war. He opposed the system pursued, and denounced it as a wasteful expenditure of the means of a people, many of whom were living in humble stations, in submission to many privations. Mr. MORRIS spoke in opposition to the amendment. He would make retrenchment where retrenchment was necessary, in order to bring the expenditures to a proper economical stand who were, so eager for reform in the navy would bring forward some specific charge of abuse. Gentlemen must recollect that that important arm of the service of the country was not quite so easy in its discipline, so luxurious in its comforts and enjoyments, and so munificent in its rewards, as had been represented by some. No, the discipline was an iron discipline; the duties were most arduous; and the officers and sailors of that service were deserving of rewards not only in their own persons, but in the persons of their surviving relatives. There was no navy in the world, the officers and seamen of which practised so much self-denial as the American navy; nor was there any navy better calculated to render immediate and efficient service. He hoped the bill would pass. Mr. HOPKINS appealed to gentlemen to defer the discussion as to the general merits and demerits of the navy, until the subject should come up upon a bill of a more general nature. Mr. HOLMES urged the passage of the bill and the rejection of the amendment. The debate was further continued by Messrs. PARMENTER, BARNARD, J. R. INGERSOLL, McDow ELL, and SMITH of Illinois, when the question was taken on the pending amendment; which, being rejected, the bill was laid aside. MONDAY, February 5. Abolition of Slavery in the Southern States. Mr. BEARDSLEY presented a petition from sundry citizens of New York, praying for an amendment of the constitution so as to effect the abolition of slavery in the Southern States. The SPEAKER decided that this petition came within the rule prohibiting the reception of abolition petitions; and it was therefore not received. 21st Rule. Mr. BEARDSLEY presented a petition from sundry citizens of New York, praying for the repeal of the 21st rule; which was laid on the table. Petitions were also presented from the State of New York, by Messrs. SEYMOUR, DANA, and FISH. Mr. HUNT presented a petition praying that the ordinance of 1787, which prohibits the existence of slavery in the North-western Territory of the United States, may be extended over all the Territories of the United States lying west of the Mississippi River. The SPEAKER was of opinion that this petition did not come within the rule. Mr. CAMPBELL inquired if it did not pray for the abolition of slavery in all our Territories west of the Mississippi River, and consequently in our Territory of Texas. He raised the question of reception; but, after some conversation, withdrew it that the. vote might be taken on a motion made by Mr. PAYNE to lay the petition on the table. Mr. HUDSON called for the yeas and nays. Mr. PAYNE withdrew his motion after some conversation, in which several members took part. Mr. BRODHEAD renewed it, and the yeas and nays were ordered, and being taken, resulted yeas 118, nays 56. So the petition was laid on the table. Disunion. Mr. ADAMS presented the resolutions of the legislature of Massachusetts, asking for an amendment of the constitution, so as to exclude that portion of the representation of the Southern States which is based on their slave population. [These resolutions were presented on last petition day by Mr. ADAMS, and the question of reception being raised on them, and giving rise to debate, they were laid over.] Mr. BURT, of South Carolina, objected to the reception of the resolutions, and gave notice of his intention to debate the question. The SPEAKER said that, debate arising, the rules required the question to go over. Mr. ADAMS hoped that gentlemen would debate the question now, and let it be decided. The subject embraced in these resolutions had been already referred to a Select Committee, of which he was a member, on similar resolutions, passed at the preceding session of the Massachusetts legislature; and it was desirable that the committee should present their report, which they could not do until these resolutions were referred. The SPEAKER said that it was not in order to debate the question. Mr. CAVE JOHNSON begged leave to suggest to the gentleman from South Carolina to withdraw his objections, as these resolutions were the same as those already before the committee, and the committee could not report until they were referred. Mr. BUT, in reply to the gentleman from Tennessee, observed that this committee was raised out of courtesy to the State of Massachusetts; but it now appeared that there was a design to make it a standing committee, to serve as a receptacle for all those incendiary petitions and resolutions which could be manufactured to order. The SPEAKER interrupted the gentleman from South Carolina, and stated that it was not in order to debate the question. Some conversation ensued, in which Messrs, ADAMS, CAMPBELL, BLACK, SAMPLE, and WINTHROP took part, resulting in the SPEAKER'S deciding that the question of reception could then be taken-Mr. ADAMS having stated that, in presenting the resolutions, he had called for the decision of that question. The yeas and nays having been called for by Mr. ADAMS, and ordered by one-fifth of the [FEBRUARY, 1844. members present, were taken on the question, "Shall the question of reception be now considered?" and resulted-yeas 74, nays 91. So the resolutions were not received. Mr. ADAMS then proceeded with the presentation of petitions and laid before the House a great number on a great variety of subjects. Amongst others, there was one from Elmira, New York, praying for the amendment of the constitution so as to secure the extinction of the slave representation. The yeas and nays were called for and ordered on the question of reception; and being taken, they resulted-yeas 73, nays 75. So the petition was not received. Mr. ADAMS presented a petition, the reception of which was objected to, and the yeas and nays demanded, upon the question of seconding the demand for the yeas and nays, 49 voted in the affirmative, and 52 in the negative. So the yeas and nays were not ordered. On motion of Mr. HOLMES, The House then adjourned. IN SENATE. WEDNESDAY, February 7. Mr. SIMMONS presented the credentials of JOHN BROWN FRANCIS, a Senator elected by the Legislature of Rhode Island, to fill the unexpired term of William Sprague, who resigned. The credentials were read, and he was qualified. THURSDAY, February 8. Slave Representation. He moved to After the reading of the journal, Mr. BATES rose and said that, some days since, he presented to the Senate resolves of the legislature of Massachusetts upon the subject of amending the Constitution of the United States, so as to apportion representation and direct taxaation among the States, according to the free population in each. He presented them because, as a Senator from Massachusetts, he thought it his duty to do so. lay them on the table. There was not within his contemplation more than one event that could happen that would induce him to call them up. He was not for disturbing the foundations of the government. He moved also, as was usual in such cases, that they be printed. The Senate refused to print them. It was now too late to move a reconsideration of the vote; and he would not move it if he could. Yesterday, the honorable Senator from Georgia (Mr. BERRIEN) presented counter resolutions of the legislature of his State upon the same subject. He moved to lay them on the table, and to print them. The Senate ordered them to be printed. He (Mr. B.) voted for the printing. He rose then to bring the fact distinctly and formally to the notice of the FEBRUARY, 1844.] The Fine Bill. [28TH CONG. Senate, that it might, if it thought proper, | sideration of the bill was postponed till tocorrect the difference in its action; or, if not, morrow. that his State might see the discrimination which had been made, and the measure of justice or injustice which had been meted out to her. The CHAIR inquired whether he intended to submit any motion. Mr. BATES remarked that he had no motion to submit to the Senate. He rose only to submit these remarks to its consideration. The State of Iowa. The PRESIDENT pro tem. laid before the Senate a communication from the President of the United States, transmitting a letter from the governor of Iowa, accompanied by a memorial of the legislative assembly of that territory, asking admission, as an independent State, into the Union; which, on the motion of Mr. SEVIER, was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. TUESDAY, February 13. The Fine Indemnity Bill. Mr. ALLEN moved to postpone the previous orders of the day, with a view to take up the bill from the House for restoring the fine imposed upon General Jackson at New Orleans. Mr. HUNTINGTON inquired, before the question was taken, whether the effect would be to postpone the other subject the tariff which was in order to-day. Mr. ALLEN remarked, that if the bill to restore the fine was not disposed of by the expiration of the morning hour, he would, at that time, move its postponement, to prevent any interference with the unfinished business of yesterday. The question was then put on Mr. ALLEN'S motion, and carried; and the bill was taken up, as in Committee of the Whole-the question pending being the amendment from the Judiciary Committee in the following words, viz: Provided, That nothing in this act shall be construed to express or imply any censure of the conduct or character of the Hon. Dominick A. Hall, by whom the fine was imposed. The question was then taken on the proviso of the Judiciary Committee, and decided in the negative, on yeas and nays-yeas 18, nays 26, as follows: YEAS.-Messrs. Archer, Bayard, Berrien, Choate, Clayton, Dayton, Evans, Huger, Huntington, Merrick, Miller, Morehead, Pearce, Phelps, Porter, Simmons, Upham, and Woodbridge-18. NAYS.-Messrs. Allen, Atchison, Atherton, Bagby, Barrow, Benton, Breese, Buchanan, Colquitt, Fairfield, Foster, Francis, Fulton, Hannegan, Haywood, Henderson, Jarnagin, King, Mangum, Semple, Sturgeon, Tallmadge, Tappan, Walker, Woodbury, and Wright-26. On motion by Mr. EVANS, the further con WEDNESDAY, February 14. On motion by Mr. ALLEN, the previous orders of the day were postponed, and the Senate resumed the consideration, as in Committee of the Whole, of the bill to restore to General Jackson the fine imposed on him in New Orleans. Mr. WOODBRIDGE expressed, at considerable length, his views in opposition to the doctrine of instruction; and explained his reasons for not voting in conformity with the desire of the legislature of his State. In conclusion, he stated that the amendment of the Finance Committee having been rejected by the Senate, he could not vote for the bill in its original form. There being no further proposition to amend the bill, it was reported to the Senate. Mr. HUGER said he was very glad there was no disposition on the part of any member of the Senate to impute to Judge Hall any improper conduct. He had been a fellow-townsman of Judge Hall, who was a lawyer of character in South Carolina, when he (Mr. H.) commenced the study of law. He was not intimate with him; but the community in which Judge Hall lived considered him, till the day of his death, incapable of doing any thing disreputable to his character, as an honorable That he was wrong in this and upright man. instance, he (Mr. H.) never had doubted. He, as well as the whole world, was surprised that General Jackson, under the peculiar circumstances of the war, was able to make such a defence as he did at the battle of New Orleans. If the question were now put, Would we have New Orleans defended as it was? we would say, Yes; that General Jackson's conduct was correct. He effected much more than was anticipated. In regard to the conduct of Judge Hall, he (Mr. H.) disapproved of it; but he spoke of his memory with every sentiment of respect; and, if he now had the power of erasing from history an act that was done thirty years since-if Judge Hall were living, and such a laspe of time had not taken placehe would not exercise that power. It presented to the public mind one of the best moral pictures recorded in modern history. There was General Jackson, the conqueror of the conqueror of kingdoms, returning to New Orleans, and presenting himself at the feet of justice, and bowing to the supremacy of the law. This was a moral picture more venerable, in his mind, than the victory achieved at New Orleans itself. The moral was much end of time, it would not be forgotten. more important; and he trusted that, to the Mr. PORTER said that he stood in the same category with his honorable colleague-having |