Page images
PDF
EPUB

H. OF R.]

Decision of the Chair.

[MAY 30, 1836.

present session in the slightest degree to retard or ob-assign them, would be when the question was propound

struct the business of the House, nor had he raised a single point of order. On the abolition memorials he had, until the formation of the select committee, in every instance voted to lay them on the table. Nor had he once refused to vote, or dodged any question. On several occasions he had sustained the decisions of the Chair, and should continue to do so, whenever he thought them right. For that gentleman he had voted, and his reasons were conscientious and satisfactory to himself for preferring him as the presiding officer of the House. The editor of the Globe had no right to denounce him as a "factious spirit or anarchist," nor to classify him with "White men and nullifiers."

Mr. HARD called for the orders of the day.

ed by the Speaker; and, therefore, that is the time that he should ask to be excused when the vote is taken by ayes and noes, because, in strict parliamentary construction, the vote by acclamation and the vote by ayes and noes are one and the same, though it is physically impossible to take the latter in the same manner with the former.

It is maintained by those who oppose the decision of the Chair, that if motions of gentlemen to be excused from voting be postponed until after the House has decided the main question before it, and then, should the House refuse to excuse them from voting, they might prefer voting to incurring the penalty of refusing; and thus might vote on a question that had already been de

The CHAIR decided that the question of order took cided, and thereby reverse the former decision; and this, precedence, and must first be settled.

say gentlemen, would introduce much confusion. It is Mr. SPEIGHT remarked that it was the misfortune further said that the discussion of the excuses offered by of members of Congress to be visited by the "slang gentlemen might occupy several days; and if they were twang" of newspapers, and he would refer them to the not excused, and thereupon choose to vote, they might columns of the Intelligencer and United States Tele- change by their votes the decision made on a previous graph, when the editors of those papers were respect-day. Sir, said Mr. S., these are difficulties; and if we can ively printers to the House, and the party to which Mr. S. belonged were in the minority. Mr. S. then proceeded to show that the decision of the Chair was right, and referred to the circumstance of the precedent cited by the Speaker in support of that position.

Mr. BELL spoke in favor of an enforcement of the rules of the House. He cited the rule, that members shall vote unless, for special reasons, they are excused by a vote of the House, and said that this rule ought to be enforced, and that the decision of the Speaker would have to be reversed, because the time might, and probably would, come, when the order of the House would be broken up by a factious minority. He then referred to the power given in the constitution to enable the House to regulate its own proceedings, to punish mem. bers, and by a vote of two thirds to expel a member. He said, in the case supposed, where members might embarrass the proceedings, this power should be exercised; and after one or two factious or contumacious persons had been expelled, others would be cautious how they refused to vote, except for good and sufficient

reasons.

Mr. SPANGLER said: I desire to say a few words in explanation of my opinion on the question before the House. A vote has been ordered to be taken by ayes and noes. The Clerk has proceeded with the call, and a number of gentlemen have answered to their names. The gentleman from Maryland, [Mr. JENIFER,] on his name being called, rose in his place, and moved that he be excused from voting. The Chair entertained the motion, but decided that before the question can be taken on excusing, the vote of the House on the pending question must be finished, and the decision thereon announced." From this decision the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. WISE] has appealed; and the question is, "ishall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the House?" Sir, said Mr. S., I am for sustaining the Chair; think the decision clearly right. Should we reverse it, and establish the contrary rule, much inconvenience might follow; and indeed it might be found impossible to transact the business of the House. The question is a new one, and is attended with difficulties. Our object should be to settle it in such a manner as to avoid, as far as possible, embarrassment and confusion. The vote of the House by ayes and noes is but one vote, though there are two hundred and forty members; and, upon parliamentary principles, is precisely the same as the vote by acclamation. They are identical. If the rule required that a member should assign his reasons for being excused from voting, when the vote is taken by acclamation, the only time, of course, when he could

avoid them without running into others equally embarrassing on the other side, we certainly should do so. But, sir, suppose we reverse the Speaker's decisionsuppose we establish it as a part of the lex parliamenta. ria, that "after the call of the ayes and noes has commenced, and a part of the members have answered to their names and voted, a gentleman, on his name being called, may answer by moving to be excused from voting. and that that motion must be decided before the vote of the House on the main question is gone through with," what consequences may result from such a proceeding? Let us carry it out for a moment. If one gentleman may claim this as a right, so may others. A vote by ayes and noes is commenced. Part of the members, on their names being called, have answered and voted. The vote of the House is in part taken; and at this stage of the proceeding, a gentleman, on his name being called, moves to be excused from voting, and proceeds to assign his reasons. He goes into an argument on the merits-yes, sir, the merits of the main question before the House, by way of proving that he cannot conscientiously vote on it, either in the affirmative or negative, no jurisdiction; that it involves the exercise of power He may urge that it is a subject over which Congress has not conferred by the constitution; that the subject, though within the constitutional power of Congress, is of a nature so delicate and dangerous, that its agitation will only tend to excite and inflame the public mind. These, and many other topics of discussion, may be introduced by gentlemen as considerations which ought to operate to excuse them from voting.

Well, sir, other gentlemen, differing in opinion from these, will of course answer them, or at least may answer them; and thus, after the vote of the House has been in part taken, a debate on the merits of the main question may arise, extending throughout several days. At last a decision is had on the motion to be excused. The name of the gentleman next on the list is called, and he moves to be excused from voting; and he also assigns his reasons; a debate again ensues, and after one or more days spent in discussing his excuses, a decision is had. The Clerk then calls the name of the next gentleman, and he wishes to excused, and a debate again ensues. Sir, where is it to end? and if this mode of proceeding be established, how long may the House be occupied in taking a vote on the main question? Sir, so far as I can discover, weeks or months might be consumed in calling the ayes and noes on a single proposition.

Again: During this time, what sort of a journal would your proceedings present? On the first day the ayes and noes are called through the A's; on the second, through

[blocks in formation]

the B's; on the third day, through the C's; and so on to the end of the alphabet, requiring as many days as there are letters. If such were in fact the proceedings of the House, I ask gentlemen, in all candor, whether they would be willing to have them spread upon the journals'

Again: Suppose the previous question had been ordered, bow will its operation be affected by such a proceeding? Every gentleman knows that the previous question is intended to cut off all further debate on the main question; but the principle contended for might render it a nullity, and in effect entirely abrogate it. Suppose the previous question to be ordered by the House. The Clerk is calling the ayes and noes on the main question. A gentleman, on his name being called, moves to be excused from voting. He proceeds to assign his reason; and it is, that the 36th rule of the House, which authorizes the previous question, is unconstitutional, as tending to abridge the liberty of speech. Sir, I am no advocate for the frequent use of the previous question; but I would ask to what length might not such a discussion extend' Again: A gentleman moves that he be excused from voting. After hearing his excuse, and debating it, it is ordered that the vote on excusing be taken by ayes and noes; and on that question, another gentleman, on his name being called, moves to be excused from voting; and after a debate on his motion to be excused, the vote is ordered to be taken by ayes and noes; and, while the Clerk is calling the names, another gentleman asks that he be excused. Sir, where is it to end? when is it to end?

The question arises, how are we to steer clear of these difficulties? How are we to transact the public business without entangling ourselves in the meshes of our own rules? To me the question is free from embarrassmentthe path is direct and plain. The 28th rule of the House says: "Every member who shall be in the House when the question is put shall give his vote, unless the House, for special reasons, shall excuse him." When may he ask to be excused? I answer, at any time before the Clerk has commenced calling the ayes and noes, but not after. A gentleman may ask to be excused from voting when it is in order to do so, but at no other time. We ought so to construe and apply our rules that they may harmonize and conduce to the easy and convenient transaction of business. The 34th rule provides that "a motion to adjourn shall always be in order." Yes, sir, "always in order;" but who ever dreamed that it was in order, under this rule, to move an adjournment pending the call of the ayes and noes, or while a gentleman has the floor, unless he expressly yields it for that purpose?

Again: The call of the ayes and noes occupies about half an hour. After the expiration of the morning hour, it is in order, even pending the consideration or discussion of reports from committees and resolutions, to move that the House do now proceed to dispose of the business on the Speaker's table, and to the orders of the day, (see rule 17.) Yet if the morning happens to expire, as it frequently does, pending the call of the ayes and noes on questions pertaining to morning hour business, who ever thought of interrupting the vote by interposing a motion that the House do now proceed to dispose of the business on the Speaker's table, and to the orders of the day?"

Again: After the previous question is ordered, a motion for a call of the House is in order; so is a motion to lay the main question on the table; so is a motion to adjourn. And each of these motions may be made again and again, one after the other, at any time between the call of the previous question and the commencement of the call of the ayes and noes. But every gentleman knows that, after the call of the ayes and noes is commenced, no motion is in order until after the decision of

[H. OF R.

the main question. Is it, then, consistent with the general scope and spirit of the rules I have cited, that, after the previous question has been ordered, and after the ayes and noes are commenced, and when no one of the privileged motions can be interposed, yet another motion may be made-must be entertained and decided-which may involve in its consideration a protracted debate on the merits of the main question? Yes, sir, which may present as wide a field for discussion as was open to gentlemen the first moment the main subject was taken up in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. Sir, I can sanction no construction of rules that leads to such results. I believe that it might lead in its consequences to endless confusion and interruption of the business of the House. To avoid this, I would so construe the 28th rule as to require that gentlemen ask to be excused from voting before the commencement of the call of the ayes and noes. "Every member who shall be in the House when the question is put shall give his vote, unless the House, for special reasons, shall excuse him." When, in the language of the rule, "is the question put"" It is put when the Chair propounds it to the House. Then is the time for gentlemen to ask to be excused, if they do not wish to vote. The calling of the ayes and noes by the Clerk is not putting the question. He puts no question to the House, and he cannot call the names of the members until after the Chair has put the question. My opinion is, that a motion to be excused from voting ought not to be enter tained after the call of the ayes and nocs has been commenced; and that, if entertained, its consideration and decision should be postponed until after the pending question is decided, and the decision announced to the House; and I shall so vote.

Mr. ADAMS made and enforced the point, that the rule says the member shall give his vote "when the question is put;" and as it is put to each member, when his name is called, then is the time for him to vote or ask to be excused, and give his reasons. Such, he contended, was the rule, and if inconvenience should arise, the rule could be changed; and he then referred to his own case in 1832, the principles of which he explained to be exactly the reverse of that assumed by the Speaker. The House did not then pass over the name, but did vote upon the request to excuse, and refused it; and then resolutions were offered and postponed, declaring that he had committed a breach of the rules, and ordering the appointment of a committee to ascertain what measures the House should take. The course now adopted, he said, was a practical nullification of the rule, and the House really had no rule upon the subject.

Mr. BOON said, if editors of newspapers were the contemptible creatures represented by members of the House, he thought it improper, if not evincing a want of dignity, to reply to their remarks upon that floor. If they were entirely worthless, why did gentlemen condescend to reply to them there? For one, he would not do so. If he were assailed in this way, he would, if he deemed it necessary, redress the grievance elsewhere. After the learned dissertation which they had just heard from the gentleman from Massachusetts, he humbly conceived that they had had glory enough for the public service for one day, in discussing editorial paragraphs and the subject of a member sitting in his seat and refusing or declining to vote; he therefore moved the previous question.

The previous question was seconded by the House: Yeas 75, nays 46; and the main question was ordered to be put without a count.

The main question, "Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the House?" was decided in affirmative: Yeas 108, nays 61.

The CHAIR then announced the vote on the motion

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

The House proceeded to consider the resolution reported by Mr. OWENS, from the Committee of Ways and Means, fixing on a day for considering the deposite bill. The resolution, having been amended, was to make the said bill, together with the bills then on the Speaker's table, the special orders of the day for the day succeeding the final disposition of the appropriation bills. The question pending was the motion of Mr. BELL to strike out all after the word Resolved, and insert, That the deposite bill be made the special order for the 25th May. Mr. BELL modified his motion by substituting the 13th June for the 25th May.

Mr. MILLER moved to postpone the subject until Monday next. Lost: Yeas 49, nays 80.

Mr. KINNARD moved to amend the amendment by including the bills relative to the Cumberland road; but subsequently withdrew it.

Mr. OWENS suggested that the bill be made the special order for to-morrow week.

Mr. E. WHITTLESEY moved to except Fridays and Saturdays; lost: Ayes 69, noes 74.

Mr. McCOMAS moved to amend the amendment by including in the special order the bills for extending the pension act of 1832, establishing the northern boundary of Ohio, and for the admission of Michigan and Arkansas into the Union.

Mr. WILLIAMS, of North Carolina, moved to postpone the whole subject until Tuesday next, which was agreed to: Ayes 86, noes not counted.

Mr. MILLER, from the Committee on Invalid Pensions, made a report concluding with a resolution setting apart Saturday next, from half past ten o'clock, for the consideration of bills reported, and to be reported previous to that time, by said committee.

Mr. WARDWELL moved to amend the resolution by including the bills reported by the Committee on Revolutionary Pensions.

Mr. JARVIS moved to amend the amendment by including the bills reported by the Naval Committee, for naval pensions: lost.

Mr. E. WHITTLESEY moved to include the bills reported by the Committee on Claims: lost.

Mr. PARKS moved to lay the original resolution and amendment on the table; which was agreed to: Yeas 70, nays 59.

POLISH EXILES.

Mr. BOON, from the Committee on Public Lands, reported a bill to amend an act granting lands to certain exiles from Poland.

The bill having been read twice, and the question being on ordering it to be engrossed for a third reading,

Mr. GRANGER said he did not know that he should object to passing this bill to a third reading; but he could not, at this time, consent to vote upon it. He had known something of the manner in which those lands had been selected. He had listened as attentively as he could to the reading of the bill, and, for aught he could see, after these lands shall have been drawn, it would be in the power of these Polish exiles to sell their shares

[MAY 31, 1836.

to whom they pleased; thus opening, if he understood the bill, (though perhaps he did not,) under the form of charity, a pretty extensive field for speculation. A case like this had recently come within his knowledge. An old schoolmate of his presented himself to him the other day, after an absence of twenty years; he told him that he had gone on to the public lands, without authority of law, but as an American citizen, and as much entitled to the consideration of Congress as any Polish exile, however unfortunate his position. Well, on a quarter section of land this individual located himself, without authority, but relying on what had been the law of this country, granting privileges to actual settlers upon the unsurveyed public lands, which law he (Mr. G.) hoped would be re-enacted, but which, as it now stood, was likely to do as much injustice to individuals, as some gentlemen assured us it had wrought injury to the public Treasury. His friend located himself on this quarter section, and expended in mills, and other establishments, some ten thousand dollars; being, as he believed, two thirds of the accumulation of twenty years of industry. A Polish exile came and located this very land, under the law of 1834, and claimed that the Secretary should give him the land, with all its improvements.

Mr. G. repeated that he had not been able, from this cursory reading of the bill, to understand it; and he did not rise to throw any embarrassment in the way of its passage, if it was proper that it should pass. But he would ask the gentleman who had charge of the bill to permit it to lie on the table until he had an opportunity to examine it.

Do

Mr. BOULDIN said he was not like the gentleman from New York, [Mr. GRANGER,] who had just taken his seat. He (Mr. B.) would vote for this bill in no stage. If it took from the grantees any thing, he would not vote for it. He would not rob a robber, much less a beggar. If it added to their grant the breadth of a hair, he would not vote for it. Why should we grant land to the Poles? Were they meritorious: Our own citizens are equally so. Were they poor: Our own citizens, many of them, were as poor as any body. we wish to encourage rebellion in foreign countries? This would hazard our safety-our name as an honest nation-our character as a wise and prudent people. These he would not hazard on any consideration. But here there was nothing to hazard, unless we did it wil. lingly and unnecessarily. We had jewed, screwed, he was sorry to say, almost shuffled with, our old revolu. tionary soldiers, in relation to their claims, and had given these foreigners their thirty-six sections of land, of six hundred and forty acres each, which he understood had been selected on both sides of a river for many miles up and down, including the improvements of many who had spent their lives, and risked the lives of their families, to obtain from the Indians the very land now given to the Poles. He said he would contrast the conduct of the Government in relation to their own citizens with that of the Government in relation to these foreigners.

Mr. CONNOR rose and said he was sorry to be obliged to interrupt the gentleman from Virginia, but he must call for the orders of the day.

Mr. BOULDIN was quite willing to conclude his remarks, either then, or whenever the bill should again come up in its order.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Kentucky, asked the consent of the House to permit him to report from the Committee on Military Affairs a bill from the Senate providing for the appointment of three additional paymasters of the army. His object was to act on the bill forthwith, inasmuch as the public service was suffering, and he had received a communication from the executive department urging the speedy passage of the bill.

The motion was objected to.

[blocks in formation]

POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT. In execution of the special order of Friday last, the House resumed the consideration of the "bill to change the organization of the Post Office Department, and to provide more effectually for the settlement of the accounts thereof."

The question pending was on concurring with the Committee of the Whole in their proposition to amend the bill, by inserting the following clause:

"SEC. 38. And be it further enacted, That from the thirty-first day of December, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-six, the following rates of postage shall be charged upon all letters and packets carried in the mail of the United States, excepting such are by law exempt from postage, to wit:

"For every single letter, or letter composed of one piece, carried not exceeding fifty miles, five cents. "Over fifty, and not exceeding one hundred miles, ten

cents.

"Over one hundred, and not exceeding two hundred miles, fifteen cents.

"Over two hundred, and not exceeding four hundred miles, twenty cents.

"Over four hundred, and not exceeding eight hundred miles, twenty-five cents.

"Over eight hundred miles, thirty cents. "And for every letter or packet composed of two pieces, double these rates; and for every letter or packet composed of three pieces, triple these rates; and for every letter or packet composed of four or more pieces, quadruple these rates: Provided, That all letters and packets of one ounce, avoirdupois, in weight, or more, shall be charged single for every quarter of an ounce."

The question pending was the motion of Mr. MARTIN, to reconsider the vote by which the following amendment was adopted:

Retain the first clause of the section, and strike out all after the 7th to the 15th line of the section, inclusive, and insert, “over 50 miles, and not exceeding 150, ten cents; over 150 miles, and not exceeding 400, fifteen cents; over 400 miles, and not exceeding 800, twenty cents; over 800 miles, twenty-five cents."

[H. OF R.

his constituents. He hoped that the vote would not be reconsidered, or that the House would retain the old tariff.

Mr. HUNT said: I trust, sir, the House will not agree with the Committee of the Whole in their amendment to this bill; and I shall vote in favor of a reconsideration, in the hope that the projet of the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads may be adopted; or, if not, at least that the House will adhere to the rates of postage as now established by law. When this question was before the Committee of the Whole, (on the 27th of May,) I endeavored to show that the old rates of postage were not only inconvenient, but established arbitrarily, without much regard to any governing principle, and in their operation worked great injustice; and I gave, as an illustration of this view, the case of Albany and Troy in my own State, the former paying only twelve and a half cents upon single letters from New York, and the latter paying eighteen and three quarters of a cent, merely because Albany fell two miles short of 150 miles from New York, and Troy ran four miles over 150. That this inequality operated as a tax upon the citizens of Troy, for the benefit, in all its business operations, of a rival city. I then adverted to the difficulty of assuming any scale of miles which should do exact justice to all; and contended that, in fixing a scale, we not only had a right, but it was our duty, to look to its operation upon the great business portions of our country. I believe, sir, that the projet of the committee has been based substantially upon these views. That projet possesses another advantage, in simplifying the mode of keeping the accounts of the Department, and in adapting the charges to the federal coin of the country. Again: it will in its operation produce a very considerable reduction in the tax upon the circulation of intelligence-a tax which should at all times be placed as low as the exigencies of the Government will allow. But the amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole, and which is pro. posed to be reconsidered, not only in my judgment restores all the inequalities of the old tariff, but will reduce the revenue of the Post Office Department to an extent rendering all further increase of mail facilities impossible, without a resort directly to your Treasury. This is a state of things not to be desired by an American legis

Mr. CONNOR produced a letter from the Postmaster General on the subject of the tariff of postages, and giv-lator or patriot. ing a detailed statement of the revenue derivable from the various rates of postage. By the old plan, the revenue therefrom amounted to about $3,000,000. By the plan of the committee, there would be a loss on the smaller rates of $281,152, and a gain on the larger of $188,408, being a total loss of $92,744. But by the amendment, if adopted, there would accrue a loss of $549,417, which would at once suspend and put an end to all chance of increasing the facilities of mail transportation and of opening new routes. The letter was of great length, and entered into a great variety of details in reference to the point, and earnestly recommended that either the proposition of the committee should be adopt-❘ ed, with the modification of reducing the rate of letters over 800 miles from 30 cents to 25, or otherwise retain the old rates.

Mr. MARTIN explained the reasons that had induced him to change his opinion. He was assured that the amendment would cripple the Department, and he was in favor of the old rates.

Mr. HAWES was in favor of the old tariff, and should vote both against the amendment and the proposition of the committee.

Mr. McKENNAN was in favor of the present rates; for he had heard no complaints from his constituents, and he did not believe any change was desired.

Mr. PARKS entered into an explanation, showing that the proposition of the committee would injuriously affect

After the clear and frank statement from the Department read this morning from your table, showing its capabilities and wants, in reference to the best interests of the country, no one, it seems to me, can doubt as to the course now to be pursued. By agreeing to the amendment adopted in Committee of the Whole, we ob viate very few of the evils of the old system, while we cripple the most beneficent operations and improvements of the Department. By reconsidering the vote taken on a former day, we place it in our power to adopt the projet of the Post Office Committee, matured with much deliberation, and sanctioned by the Department; or, at least, (if this course be not acceptable to a majority of this House,) of falling back upon the present rates, which will enable the Department to progress with its proposed improvements without embarrassment, and leave to a future Legislature the task of remedying the inequalities and defects in the existing tariff of postage. I shall therefore vote for a reconsideration.

Mr. TAYLOR said that it seemed to be agreed on all hands that the Post Office Department was never intended as a source of revenue to the Government, and that it never ought to be. In this, there appears no difference of opinion. Bu, sir, if the present rates of postage are continued, it is very evident that it will become a source of revenue to a pretty large amount beyond the expenses of the Department. It appears by the report of the Postmaster General that the balance in favor of the De

H. OF R.]

Post Office Department.

[MAY 31, 1836.

partment the last year was 467,000 dollars; and the an- postage, so that all will feel its beneficial effects, and none nual increase of the amount of postage has been, for a will have to complain that it is increased at any distance; few years past, not less than ten per cent. By the and it conforms in the rate of postage to the federal curstatement of the Postmaster General which has just been rency, which all admit is desirable. The only objection read, the amount of postage is set down at three millions to this I believe arises from the apprehension that it will of dollars for the last year, which, at the ordinary in- so far reduce the amount of postage as to embarrass the crease, will probably be not less this year than three mil- Department, and compel the Postmaster General to lessen lion three hundred thousand dollars. The increase of the expense by diminishing the accommodations now 300,000 dollars added to the balance in favor of the De-enjoyed by the people. This certainly should be avoided. partment which accrued last year, and you have, at the I would do nothing calculated in the least to curtail the present rate of postage, the sum of 767,000 dollars present mail facilities, or to prevent that reasonable exrevenue, over the expenditures; provided there should tension of the system which the rapidly increasing popbe no additional expense incurred. The new routes ulation and business of the country may require, now or which are proposed to be established by the bill now hereafter. By the letter of the Postmaster General to before the House, it is estimated by the committee, will the chairman of the Post Office Committee, it appears cost the Department about 300,000 dollars, still leaving that his estimate of the amount of reduction which will a large balance in its favor. Now, sir, without any result from this amendment is something over half a change in the tariff of postage, and making all reason- million of dollars; which, he thinks, is more than the able allowance for extending the accommodation of mail Department can bear, and keep up the accommodations facilities according to the increasing wants of the peo. which are now furnished. But I do not understand, from ple, it cannot be doubted that there will be annually hearing the letter read, that in this estimate the increasaccumulating an excess of revenue over the expenditures, ing revenue from postage was taken into the account, to a large amount. This seems to be admitted by the which probably will equal, for a series of years, at least committee, and the amendment which they have propo- an annual increase of ten per cent., and which was esti sed, according to their estimates, will reduce the aggre- mated by the gentleman from Massachusetts at fifteen gate amount of postage some two or three hundred per cent. And as that gentleman has stated that if the thousand dollars. But this amendment I would not con- vote is not reconsidered, he shall move to amend, so as sent to, because I think it would operate unjustly and to defer the period when the new tariff of postage shall unequally. It proposes to reduce the amount of postage; take effect to the 1st day of January, 1838, it appears but while it reduces the rate with some, it increases it to me that the apprehended difficulties may and will be with others; it does not uniformly reduce the rate of avoided. There will, of course, before that period, be postage. My honorable colleague [Mr. MANN] has said, a large balance in favor of the Department, which, with more than once, that in examining this subject, it was the gradually increasing amount of postage, will, it is benot statesmanlike to examine it with reference to the lieved, be sufficient to warrant the reduction without exeffect that it might have upon one's constituents; that periencing any embarrassment. At all events, before this would be too limited a view of the subject; but that that time, we shall have had two annual reports from we should look to its effects upon the whole people at the Postmaster General; the true condition of the De_large. partment will then be well understood, and something like a just estimate may be formed of the probable effect of the reduction proposed, and the ability of the Department to sustain itself under it; and, as Congress will then be in session, any alterations can be made which may be indicated by existing circumstances. I shall, therefore, vote against a reconsideration, fearing that, if the motion to reconsider prevails, the amendment of the committee will be adopted, which I am most decidedly opposed to, preferring altogether that the present rates of postage should be continued.

Mr. SMITH said he was opposed to the motion of reconsideration. The honorable gentleman from New York, who is a member of the Post Office Committee, [Mr. MANN,] had told the House that my colleague, who has addressed the House this morning upon this subject, [Mr. PARKS,] has taken a narrow or "unstatesmanlike" view of it, because he has argued against the original proposition of the Post Office Committee, and in support of the proposition of the gentleman from Massa

Sir, I grant that in examining the effect that any measure proposed here is likely to have, we should not be exclusively confined to our immediate constituents; but I venture to say no gentleman upon this floor can examine a subject so general in its operation, affecting, more or less, all classes and conditions of people, as this amendment does, without a particular inquiry into the effect it will have upon his immediate constituents. And, indeed, sir, if he should neglect to do this, he would be wanting in his duty to them. Several gentle men have expressed to the House the opinion that the amendment of the committee would operate injuriously upon their constituents; and such, sir, I have no doubt, would be the effect upon those I have the honor to represent in part upon this floor; and hence I infer it would produce general dissatisfaction. From my district to Albany, the capital of the State, with which there is at all times an extensive correspondence, and especially during the session of the Legislature, the postage would be increased from 12 to 15 cents; and to and from Newchusetts, upon the ground of their dissimilar effects upYork, the commercial emporium of the State, it would be increased from 183 to 20 cents; and so with other important points of communication. What the aggregate effect may be, it is impossible for me to determine; but I look, as I know those whom I represent would naturally look, to the effect that it would have upon the correspondence with those important points, where business necessarily leads to the greatest amount of letter comunication, and here I find the effect of the amendment of the committee would be decidedly injurious. Sir, I voted for the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts which prevailed, and which it is now proposed to reconsider. I was in favor of this, because it is free from the objections which have been considered. it will be more uniform in its effects, reducing all the rates of

on his [Mr. PARKS's] immediate constituents, and the State of Maine. My colleague has told the House, Mr. Speaker, what will be the operations of the two projects upon the citizens of Bangor and vicinity, and demonstrated that, while the one will not be prejudicial, but, perhaps, favorable to his constituents and to others interested in the commerce of Bangor, the other will be injurious and oppressive. And it is because the argument has thus been deduced from the effect to be produced upon a region with which the representative is familiar, and about which there can be no mistake, that the honorable gentleman from New York repudiates it as narrow and unstatesmanlike.

I know not, Mr. Speaker, what may be the exact extent of territory requisite to be embraced by one's

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »