which generates such speeches. But again: only look at the manufacturing ability of the country to clothe an army, and compare it with the state of things during the war of 1812, when our soldiers were freezing for want of comfortable blankets. I saw it stated in a newspaper paragraph, a few days since, that in 1808 there were not ten bales of cotton spun by machinery in the United States; while, in 1835, there were spun 216,880 bales. I present these facts, Mr. Chairman, for the consideraration of statesmen. They will have their influence with those of all parties, whose intellectual pinions can elevate them above the filthy level of a brawling poli tician. I throw them out for the contemplation of the eagle who can soar in the heavens, and explore the wide expanse of earth and moving things below him. Your tom it, who hops and flutters in the circumference of a brush heap, and exultingly twitters over a crumb which has fallen from the table of executive patronage, can have no conception of things so vast and important.

[MAY 23, 1836.

of New York, at present occupies an equivocal position in regard to the distribution. Let me read you what your former Governors thought and said upon the sub. ject of distributing the surplus revenue. Here it is:

From Governor Clinton's message, January 2, 1827."As, however, the General Government is posse-sed of the national domains, and has exclusive authority over the most productive sources of revenue, I believe that the power of distributing the necessary funds among the several States, for objects of public improvement, ought to be incorporated into the constitution, if not recognised as already in existence."

From Governor Throop's message, January 5, 1830."In a very few years, the national debt will be paid, and as but a small portion of the revenue will be consumed in conducting the affairs of the Union, within the consti. tutional limits, and as there are no prudential reasons for continuing the duties to a certain extent, there can be no valid objection to the distribution of the surplus rev enue among the States, to be disposed of at their discre tion."

From Governor Throop's message, January 4, 1831."I submitted to the consideration of the last Legislature the propriety of taking measures to procure a distribu. tion of the surplus revenue of the United States.

I esteem it of sufficient importance to renew the sug gestion, and press it earnestly upon your consideration." Following the recommendations of Governor Throop, in March, 1831, the House of Representatives of the New York Legislature resolved, unanimously, "That the surplus revenue of the United States, beyond what shall be deemed by Congress necessary for the expenses of the General Government, and a proper provision for public defence and safety, ought to be annually distribu

Suppose, Mr. Chairman, you pass the bill under consideration, just as it is, and all other bills upon your table appropriating money for fortifications, what will come next? I need scarcely say that forts are useless unless mounted with cannon; that cannon are harmless things unless charged with powder and ball; and that forts, cannon, powder, and ball, are all good for nothing unless managed by skilful men. Men cannot garrison your forts and live upon the wind. They must be fed, and clothed, and paid their wages. When you build a few scores of new fortifications, the next thing will be to increase your standing army, in order to man the guns and take care of the forts. To accomplish all, there will be many fat jobs to let; contractors will grow fat; and there will be a new field of patronage, in which the President will feel his power in appointing new offi-ted among the several States, according to their popu cers, and no doubt he will use it to the best advantage for the good of the party. But, sir, whose money will pay for all these things? Who will be taxed to keep up the establishment, after the money arising from the sale of the public lands is all spent! for it cannot last always. Your constituents and mine will then have to bear the burden. I do not intend, if I can help it, that it shall ever come to that; and I shall vote against every entering wedge, knowing the truth of the old adage, that an ounce of preventive is better than a pound of cure," and knowing that if these things are once saddled upon the people, they will never be able to get clear of them.

lation, to be estimated in the manner pointed out by the second section of the first article of the constitution, for the apportionment of representatives and direct taxes." But how does New York stand now? Judging from the speeches made by yourself, Mr. Chairman, and others of her representation on this floor and in the Senate, she has veered about, and is now opposed to the distri. bution. Why the change! It is said, and I fear with too much truth, that your object is to hold on to the money, to aid in the election of a President; and not to interfere, at this particular time, with the policy and schemes of the new States, for fear of losing votes. Sir, if I had the election of a President more at heart than I have the welfare of the country, I would rejoice to see Congress adjourn without distributing the surplus. Every body knows it is in the power of the New York party to do it; and every body knows, if it fails, that your party will be the cause of its failure. If you do not make the distribution, the people will be convinced, be yond a doubt, that you are influenced by corrupt mo. tives, and the people will blow your candidate "sky high," with the breath of their indignation. Sir, if you wish to elect Mr. Van Buren, you had better let the States have the money. Withholding it from them will lose you more among honest men than you will be able to gain among knaves by the use of it. If that be not its operation, then I despair of the republic. It is des tined for destruction.

I have been a little curious, Mr. Chairman, to find out the opinions of others upon the subject of distributing the proceeds of the sales of the public land among the States; and I have noticed the conduct of individuals and of public bodies with some anxiety. There are three parties; and it would be amusing, were it not for the painful solicitude generated by the magnitude of the interests involved, to inquire minutely into the motives of the parties, and to trace the various circumstances by which they are influenced. Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and many other States, come out openly, and instruct their Sen tors and r quest their Representatives in Congress to favor the measure; while most, if not all, of the new States take the opposite course. Why this difference? Trace it to its source, and you will find that Pennsylvania, &c., act upon the idea that the fund be longs to all, and that justice and sound policy require its distribution; while the new States look upon the dis. tribution as calculated to deprive them of the great ad-reply to them; but I find it is impossible. I must come vantages they have heretofore derived in donations from this Government; to cut off the cherished hope of having the lands ultimately ceded to them; and to break up the harvest of speculation, which they are endeavoring to mature by graduation and pre-emption laws. The State which you in part represent, Mr. Chairman, the State

In the course of this debate, I noted many very exceptionable remarks made by those who have preceded me. I thought, at the time, if I said any thing, I would

to a close, and leave many things unnoticed which ought to be held up for public condemnation. I am constrained, however, before I sit down, to notice a few observations which have fallen from different gentlemen in the course of this latitudinous debate.

And first, Mr. Chairman, in regard to yourself: You

took occasion the other day, another bill being under
discussion, to charge those in favor of distribution with
an unwillingness to vote money, even to defend the
country against Indian massacre, because, as you said,
we wanted to divide the "spoils," and take home our
respective shares to our constituents.
How did you
know, sir, that our hearts were so eagerly bent upon
the division of the "spoils?" It is a common rule to
judge others by ourselves, and I am not sure but you
have felt its influence in the present case. Had you any
right to impute improper motives to us, from any vote
we have given? Have we not been prodigal in voting
supplies to suppress Indian hostilities? Sir, as much as
my constituents want a portion of this money to aid them
in their public works, they would not take a dollar of it
for that purpose, when it was needed to save the lives of
women and children from the scalping-knife and toma-
hawk. They would scorn me, as an unworthy repre-
sentative, if I refused to make proper appropriations for
public defence. It would be no justification to tell them
i had secured a division of the money. Their indignant
answer would be, we wanted no division under such cir-
cumstances; you ought to have applied the money in
saving the lives of the people. Sir, your insinuation
was neither creditable to us nor to yourself. You had
no more cause or right to make it, than I have to charge
you with exultation whenever you hear of Indian butch-
eries, because such things afford you suitable opportuni-
ties to raise a panic, and plausible pretexts to vote away
millions; and thus enable you to reward your friends by
throwing the money into their pockets, instead of divi-
ding it among the States, to be applied to works of in-
ternal improvement, to education, or any thing else the
States may please.

[H. or R.

excuse, probably, for his anti-nullification in South Carolina, and his ultra-nullification in Georgia, about as satisfactory as his distinction between that part of a river above, and that part of the same river below, a port of entry!

One remark more, and I am done. The chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means [Mr. CAMBRELENG] said some days since that the distribution of the surplus money among the States would corrupt them. The charge is calumny upon the States. Have they been corrupted by the large sums they have borrowed, and are borrowing? No, sir; the motive which induces them to borrow is founded in a virtuous, lofty patriotism; the uses to which they apply the money borrowed prove their fidelity and honesty in promoting the public good, and afford a certain guarantee that placing in their possession that which they demand as a right, and not as a favor, will not corrupt them, but make this Government a great deal better.

Before Mr. UNDERWOOD had concluded his remarks, as given entire above, he gave way for a motion that the committee rise; which was decided in the negative: Yeas 50, nays 71.

Mr. WISE renewed the motion that the committee rise, Mr. UNDERWOOD having given way for that motion. The vote on this motion was, yeas 51, nays 55; and no quorum voting, the committee rose, and reported that fact to the House.

A motion was then made that the House adjourn, upon which the yeas and nays were ordered; and the question being taken, it was decided in the negative: Yeas 66, nays 69.

Mr. ADAMS moved a call of the House; upon which motion the yeas and nays were ordered, and the question was decided in the negative: Yeas 45, nays 95.

So the motion for a call of the House was overruled. Mr. SUTHERLAND moved to suspend the rules, so as to make the bill the order of the day for to-morrow, at 11 o'clock; which motion prevailed: Yeas 110, nays 19. And then the House adjourned.

TUESDAY, MAY 24.

MEXICAN AFFAIRS.

Mr. ADAMS rose and remarked that he had asked the consent of the House several days since, to permit him to offer two resolutions, calling on the President for information. He had not been successful, and he now asked the consent of the House to submit the resolutions to which he had referred, and also to permit him to state, in a few words, the reasons which had induced him to offer them.

Sir, I have voted, and mean to vote, for every appropriation necessary to suppress Indian hostilities, and to defend the seaboard. After doing all that, there will still be a large surplus for distribution; and it is our duty to apply it in promoting other great interests of the country. In regard to these Indian hostilities, I believe that the administration is blameable for their existence. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. PICKENS] took occasion to condemn the President for his anti-nullification principles in reference to his State. I should not have introduced that topic; but as he did it, I take this occasion to say that, if I am correctly informed, the President was a nullifier of the first water, of the South Carolina school, at one time, and, while of that faith, wro'e a complimentary letter to Mr. Hayne, praising his nullification speech; and, moreover, sent them under his frank, printed in gold letters, to his friends! However that may be, it is certain that the President, to this day, continues to be a decided nullifier in Georgia and Alabama, abrogating Indian treaties, treating with contempt the decision of the Supreme Court, allowing these latter States to rule the Indians by laws they do not understand and have no hand in making, and per-patible with the public interest, copies of any overture mitting Georgia to seize upon and parcel out the Indian lands. Sir, you may trace the wars in the Southwest to the President's nullification, and to the oppression which he has tolerated, and which it was his duty to prevent. The Indians have been driven to madness, and they are breathing vengeance. But, sir, I will not go into the causes of the war for the purpose of refusing money necessary to bring it to a successful termination. If a man's house is on fire, the first thing to be done is to put it out; and after that, then to find out the incendiary and punish him for the crime. I am for putting out the torch of war which blazes in Florida, Georgia, and Alabama, in the first place; but I am also for keeping in view those errors in doctrine and since in practice which have brought the evils upon us. We shall learn wisdom and justice by so doing. The President will find some

The resolutions were read for information, as follows: Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to communicate to this House, if not incom

made since the 3d of March, 1829, by his authority, to the Government of the United Mexican States, for the acquisition, by the United States, of any portion of the territories of Mexico; and copies of all correspondence between the two Governments relating thereto, and upon any question of boundary existing between the United States and Mexico.

Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to communicate to this House, if not incom. patible with the public interest, a copy and translations of any law, decree, or ordinance, of the Mexican repub lic, abolishing slavery within the territories thereof, which may be in the possession of the executive department of the United States.

Objection being made to their reception,

Mr. ADAMS renewed the request that he might be

H. OF R.]

Abolition Report-Fortification Bill.

permitted to assign briefly the reasons why he had proposed the resolutions.

This was also objected to, when Mr. CHAMBERS, of Kentucky, moved to suspend the rule to enable the gentleman from Massachusetts to make the statement which he desired.

Mr. HUNTSMAN inquired whether the subject was divisible. He would hear the gentleman in reference to the first resolution, but not upon the second. He had no objection to the adoption of the former resolution, and he had reason to believe that the President would promptly give the information desired by it.

The CHAIR said the proceeding was irregular, and that the motion was not divisible.

The motion of Mr. CHAMBERS was then negatived without a count.

Mr. ADAMS then moved to suspend the rules to enable him to offer his resolutions, and asked for the yeas and nays; which were ordered.

Mr. THOMPSON, of South Carolina, said, as the motion was not now subject to amendment, he wished to give notice that, if the rule was suspended, and the res olutions submitted, he would move to amend the first by inquiring also of the President the present condition of Texas, its political organization, and his opinion of the expediency of the recognition by this Government of its independence.

Mr. HUNTSMAN hoped, if it was practicable, that the motion to suspend the rules should be taken separately on each resolution. He was in favor of the first, but opposed to the second resolution. He had reason to know, and did know, that the President was ready to answer at any moment.

Mr. ADAMS, in order to accommodate the gentleman, would vary his motion, so as to suspend the rule to enable him to offer the first resolution.

The question was then taken, when there appeared: Yeas 82, nays 68. So the rules were not suspended, two thirds being necessary.

ABOLITION REPORT.

The House resumed the consideration of the report of Mr. PINCKNEY, from the committee on the subject of the abolition of slavery.

The immediate question pending was the motion of Mr. ROBERTSON to recommit the report to the same committee, with instructions to report a resolution declaring that Congress has not the power to abolish slavery in the

District of Columbia.

[MAY 24, 1836.

Mr. UNDERWOOD resumed and concluded his re marks, as given in preceding pages.

Mr. CHILTON ALLAN called for the reading of the original amendment of Mr. CAMBRELENG; which was accordingly read, together with the amendment to the same offered by Mr. MERCER, authorizing the establishment of a national foundry.

Mr. A. then moved an amendment, providing for a reduction of the salaries of all the Government officers, including members of Congress, to the amount of 25 or 33 per cent.

Mr. ADAMS suggested that it was not in order to move another amendment to an amendment, thus accumulating one upon another.

Mr. MERCER remarked that, as his amendment seem. ed to embarrass the gentleman, [Mr. ALLAN,] he would withdraw it.

The CHAIR decided that the amendment was out of order, because the subject specially assigned for the day was appropriations for fortifications; and because, under the rule of the House, no amendment could be proposed essentially different from the subject under consideration.

Mr. ALLAN then addressed the Chair as follows:

Mr. Chairman, being in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, and the grant of the money of the people for the supply of the Government, and the proposition for retrenchment which I have had the honor to offer, being the subject of consideration, the conduct of the Government in all its departments, as well as the propriety of reducing its expenditure, are relevant and proper topics of discussion in this pressent debate.

The effort that has been made to curtail the freedom of speech, and to exclude amendments from the appropriation bills, during the present session, is one of the most remarkable signs of the times.

From the earliest date of British liberty, free discussion was allowed on money bills. The public purse being in the hands of the Commons, was the great prinwhich the Commons maintained the authority of the ciple of English liberty. It was the effectual engine by people in the Government, and restrained the power of upon which the battles between liberty and power have the King. The supply bills have ever been the field power is thrusting its eager hands into the pockets of been fought. Yet, in the American republic, when the people, their representatives are rebuked for resistance, and denounced for the exercise of the birthright supplied the demands of power with millions, we have of every freeman. But as we have already bountifully at length arrived at the point where, by common confull and free expression of opinion on our public affairs. sent, it is agreed to be a fit and proper occasion for a

Having on another subject given my views on the sur plus revenue, the national defences, and the course of to the consideration of the plan of retrenchment, I will the present administration, at present, before I proceed ples and practices, and arguments, which the public confine myself to a desultory glance at general princigood requires should be exposed.

the organization of this House, the mode of proceeding, Sir, in self-defence, I feel it to be my duty to describe and the effect of the previous question. All this is so very different from legislative proceedings in Kentucky, that it is necessary the people there should be made ac quainted with the course of business here, to enable them to judge whether their immediate representatives have done their duty.

In this I do not intend to cast any individual censure on the Speaker of the House, for he has treated me on all occasions with courtesy and politeness; in the ap pointment of committees he followed party practice. In

the Kentucky Legislature, every member can introduce any proposition, or get leave to bring in a bill on any proper subject he may desire, and can have a committee appointed favorable to the proposition, so that its friends may make it in as perfect a form as they can before it is brought before the House; and there the yeas and nays can be had, and the people be informed how every member voted. This is fair legislation; every portion of the people fairly heard, and responsibility fairly secured, in conformity with the ancient reasonable law of parliamentary proceeding.

Here, by our rules, no member can get leave to bring in a bill; the business of the House has all to pass through and receive the sanction of the standing committees. These standing committees, appointed at the commencement of every session by the Speaker, upon strict party principles, are the channels through which every measure is brought into this House. The Committees of Ways and Means, Foreign Affairs, Military Affairs, Public Lands, and the Judiciary, are the principal doors by which every question enters this House. On each of these committees there are placed three opposition members and six for the administration-two for one. Of course the opposition have no voice to bring forward any thing. The majorities of these committees decide the fate of all the important measures of the session. Whatever they recommend comes into the House under the sanction of the administration and of "the party,' and is voted through as a matter of course; whatever they report against is voted down with equal certainty.

[H. OF R.

and yet they cannot show by the journals that they have ever voted for any one of these propositions.

My colleague and friend [Mr. UNDERWOOD] brought in, early in the session, a resolution presenting all these constitutional amendments, yet we cannot get to discuss or vote on them. Under the party organization of the House and the perverted use of the previous question, it is impossible for my colleagues or myself to have dis. cussed and voted on the great measures upon which the people of Kentucky desire to see the action of Congress. I will make allusion to another subject characteristic of the times. It has become a part of a general scheme to delude and mislead the public mind, for "the party" to assume that these measures are identified with the honor and glory of the country; and every one who dares to oppose any one of these plans, however unwise it may be, is denounced as an enemy to his country. Let us see how time and reason and experience expose this arrogant folly.

In this year 1834, all who were not for reprisals against France were proclaimed to be enemies to this country. On the last night of the session, all who refused to vote three millions of money, to be used at the discretion of the President, and in clear violation of the constitution, were denounced as the allies of France. Now, all the world plainly sees that, if reprisals had passed, and the money been voted, we should now have been in the midst of a French war. It is now evident to all that those who prevented reprisals and refused to vote the money preserved the peace and honor of the country.

Among the signal blessings which a gracious Providence has showered upon our country, none is greater than such a national Senate, given at such a time--a body of the greatest men the world ever saw congregated in a legislative ball. Their debates, for the last five years, will be read with enthusiasm as long as liberty and genius shall live. In future ages they will become a political when all the selfish projects of the present day, for the obtainment of money and office, shall have perished in the forgetfulness of oblivion. The American Senate will go to posterity with the glory of having been the anchor of the vessel of state, in the tempest of all the passions unchained and let loose by the ascendency of party violence over the constitution.

The effect of this party organization of the House prevents any member of the opposition from bringing forward an original proposition; and the previous question is used so as to prevent direct votes on amendments to bills which may be pending. For example, on the other day, when the general appropriation bill was before the Committee of the Whole, my friend from Virginia [Mr. MERCER] offered an amendment to divide the proceeds of the public lands, and to limit the cost of the custom-text-book among the friends of constitutional freedom, house in the city of New York to $500,000. The previous question was called, and the amendment cut off, no question being taken on the amendment; the question being, according to our preposterous rules, on the passage of the bill. So that, by the party organization of the House, and the frequent use of the gag-law, the previous question, the dominant party can not only prevent the minority from getting a fair and direct vote, by yeas and nays, but they can so involve their course in mystery as to evade responsibility, and "dodge what questions" they may not chose to record their votes upon.

In the Committee of the Whole on the general appropriation bill, as the only opportunity of bringing for ward the measure, I offered the proposition for retrenchment; but in the House, to avoid a direct vote upon it, the previous question was called, and the journal does not show who was for and who against it.

But, sir, that the country may understand the subject, I have offered the proposition a second time, and call upon the House to take the vote by yeas and nays. And if this question is again "dodged" by the previous question, let it be distinctly understood that those who vote for the previous question are against the reduction of the expenses of the Government.

The effect of these modes of proceeding, to involve the course of the members in mystery, and to evade the responsibility, is manifest from another view of the subject. A party has been in power more than seven years, the members of which have been professing all the while a desire to amend the constitution, so that members of Congress should be rendered ineligible to executive appointments. They have all the time expressed a desire to reduce the expenses of the Government. They now have a majority, they say, of about forty in this House, VOL. XII.-245

The whole country has been filled with the lamenta. tions of the exclusive patriots for the loss of the fortification bill of the last session; and, at this session, the following resolution was proposed:

"Resolved, That the President be requested to cause the Senate to be informed of, 1st. The probable amount that would be necessary for fortifying the lake, maritime, and gulf frontier of the United States, and such points of the land frontier as may require permanent fortification."

And all were denounced as enemies to the country who would not agree to pledge the surplus revenue to this ill-advised measure; when, lo and behold, the enlightened Secretary of War, by the approbation of the President, in his luminous report of the 7th of April, completely demolishes the whole scheme; and the friends of an extensive plan of new fortifications, who had been so liberal in their denunciations of its enemies, were compelled to face to the right-about, a movement which frequent use had made easy and familiar in the evolutions of this administration.

On the 21st of March, while the application of the public treasure to the erection of new fortifications was all the rage, I took the responsibility of maintaining the impracticability of defending our extensive frontier by fortification; that the system had already been carried too far; that it would lead to a large standing army; that the true strength of our country was in the hearts of a

H. OF R.]

Fortification Bill.

brave people, and the way to insure success in war was
to enable them to concentrate their power wherever
danger should approach, by means of steam and roads,
with the greatest possible celerity. I have the unex-
pected pleasure of seeing that every position which I
took is sustained in the report of the Secretary of War.
The report of the Secretary has rendered the denun-
ciations against the members of the minority for their
opposition to new fortifications as powerless as time has
rendered those which were levelled at them for their op-
position to reprisals and the grant of the three millions.
It is thus that the opponents of these wild and danger-
ous schemes stand not only justified by experience and
reason, but they have the honor of the sagacity of hav-
ing foreseen, and the firmness to resist and defeat them in
the face of power.

(MAY 24, 1856.

prevail, that is, that Congress was bound to vote all the money demanded by the Departments, unless the negative could be proven, and the grants thus procured, not to be limited by specific appropriation, but left in the broad field of executive discretion, then the provision of the constitution referred to is useless; it would be as well to authorize the President to draw on the Treasury for all he wanted, and to expend it as he pleased.

The good old doctrine of the Jeffersonian school is, that when the Departments call for appropriations, the burden of proof shall be upon them, and the grant was not to be made unless they convinced Congress, by reason and evidence, of the propriety of what they had rec ommended; and when the money was voted, the precise object to which it should be applied was defined, leaving no discretion with the President, but making it his duty to see the money was expended according to law, and not according to his will.

I will notice in this place the systematic attempt made at this session to establish two principles in regard to the appropriation of money which are subversive of the con- I will proceed to show the boundless extravagance to stitution, and upon the success of which depend the as- which general grants of money, unguarded by specific cendency of the executive control above that of the le-appropriations, according to the recommendation of Mr. gislative in the disposition of the public treasure-princi- Jefferson, will lead; and the wide range of power which ples that have been contended for from the commence- they place in the hands of the Executive, by enabling ment of the Government by the advocates of the exten- him to give fat contracts to his friends. It would be imsion of executive power. The first of those princi- possible, in the compass of a speech, to describe all the ples was advanced by the gentleman from Pennsylvania instances of prodigal expenditure by which millions of [Mr. SUTHERLAND] as the true doctrine "of the party." the public money are annually squandered, by the aid It is this: that the recommendation of any of the execu of ambiguous, undefined appropriations, among political tive departments of the Government that a certain sum partisans; but I will select two cases as specimens, to of money should be applied to a partial object, is prima show the country in what manner this administration dis facie evidence that the appropriation ought to be made, poses of the public money confided to its discretion. In and that the burden of proof is thrown upon those who maintain the negative! the year 1832, an act passed authorizing the President The other principle is, that, of the United States to cause to be built a good and suf in making appropriations, Congress should not specific ficient bridge across the Potomac river, between this ally direct the purposes to which the money shall be ap- city and Alexandria, and the sum of $200,000 was ap. plied, but that the grant should be indefinite, and that it | própriated for that object. The act failed to describe should be expended at the discretion of the Executive. the plan of the bridge, or limit its cost; it was left to the The gentleman from New York, [Mr. CAMBRELENG,] discretion of the President. The letting of the contract some weeks past, when he made his speech upon the fa- was advertised, according to the requirements of the law, mous three million effort on the last night of the last ses and was taken by Gilson and Stephens, at the sum of sion, went back for precedents, to justify and prove that $1,186,625. They were permitted to proceed upon the appropriations should be general and not special, to the work upon a mere verbal contract; and finally failed to days of '98. cxecute a written contract, and sold out their bargain to a Mr. O. H. Dibble, in whose favor the plan of the bridge was changed, and the price raised to $1,350,000, with out any new advertisement. In the same loose manner, he was permitted to proceed upon this great work, for so large a sum, upon a mere verbal understanding. In the mean time, Mr. Baldwin, an experienced engineer, reported that the bridge, upon the plan upon which Mr. Dibble was proceeding, would cost the enormous sum of $4,791,620. This extraordinary proceeding was arrest ed by the vigilance of my friend from. Virginia, [Mr. MERCER,] who is better informed upon the construction of all works of internal improvement than any man in America. He had this prodigal contract brought before Congress, and exposed its enormity. Congress refused to go on with the work, and paid Mr. Dibble for what he had done. Since which time a good and sufficient bridge has been completed-for what sum do you sup. pose, Mr. Chairman, after what you have heard? The sum of $113,000. The country is indebted mainly to the learned gentleman from Virginia for having saved between four and five millions of dollars.

The constitution contains the following clause: "No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law." The people intended by this cluse to keep the purse-strings in the hands of their immediate representatives. But this power had in effect been transferred to the Executive, by giving him grants of money to be used at his discretion. To correct this great abuse and clear violation of the constitution, Mr. Jefferson, in his very first message to Congress after his election to the presidency, expresses himself thus:

"In our case, too, of the public contributions intrusted to our direction, it would be prudent to multiply barri. ers against their dissipation, by appropriating specific sums to every specific purpose susceptible of definition; by disallowing all applications of money varying from the appropriation in object, or transcending it in amount; by reducing the undefined field of contingencies, and thereby circumscribing discretionary powers over money, and by bringing back to a single department all account. abilities for money, where the examination may be prompt, efficacious, and uniform."

This great constitutional principle of specific appropriations, brought forward by Mr. Jefferson at the commencement of his administration, has ever since been regarded as the principle, by an adherence to which econ omy could be maintained in the administration of the finances, and executive power restrained within the limits of the constitution.

If the principle now sought to be established should

The other case to which I shall refer is the customhouse now building in the city of New York. In the year 1832, the same gentleman, now at the head of the Ways and Means, reported to this House a bill, as chair. man of the Committee on Commerce, which passed at that session, and contains the following section:

"Be it enacled by the Senate and House of Represent atives of the United States of America in Congress as sembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury shall be,