H. or R.]

[JUNE 24, 1836.

Alexandria had a bill that it would take but a few moments to pass. No doubt, he thought, it would pass. If gentlemen really felt an interest for the District, why would they put over for to-morrow more than could be done on that day? Did gentlemen not know that if the few hours we had obtained from the favor of the House were taken up by these banks, that all the balance of the business would go undone? Did they not know that we would adjourn in a few days? Would we be justi. fied, while we are the only power that the people of the District have to look to, should we pass over their interest and their complaints, their grievances and their needs, and take up the whole session in vain debates about things past or things that may never come to pass? Mr. JENIFER hoped the House would take the vote on this bill at the present time, because to postpone it until to-morrow might defeat it.

Mr. VANDERPOEL said that he had the honor of being a member of the Committee on the District of Columbia, and he had at the commencement of the present session of Congress voted for the resolution to appoint a select committee for the purpose of examining into the doings of the banks in this District that apply to us for a recharter; and he regretted that that committee had not yet been able to complete its labors. They had made a report to us a few days ago, which they told us was imperfect, as it imbodied only the facts which they had been able to elicit before their examination was thorough and complete. A portion of that report was yesterday published in one of the daily papers of this city; and though, in its imperfect form, it did not profess to give a full revelation of the past operations of the banks in question, yet, as to some of them, it made disclosures that were truly startling! It was certainly very important that we should know whether these institutions had faithfully, fully, and fairly, executed the trust heretofore confided to them by Congress, before we gave them a renewed pledge of our confidence. Some of them had here, under our very eyes, suspended specie payments a few years ago; and from the skeleton of the select committee's report, which he had very hastily read, it would indeed seem that the suspension of specie pay ments, and the consequent depreciation of the stock of the banks suspending specie payments (or at least one of them) had been a source of profit to some who were connected with the institutions. He did not mean to inculpate any gentleman; but if it were true that the notes or stock of any of these institutions had depreciated, and any of the directors of that institution, by the direct or indirect purchase of stock or the bills of the banks, had profited by such depreciation, he would no sooner vote to renew the charter of such a bank than he would vote to legalize or sanctify the most nefarious frauds and most unhallowed speculations. Let us, then, (said Mr. V.,) have all the light that we can command-let the report of the select committee be printed and laid on our tables before we prolong the existence of these institutions, either for good or for evil.

Mr. V. said that the bill from the Senate came before us in a very strange, if not a very objectionable, form. It proposes by one bill, one act and deed, to recharter a whole batch of banks. For his part, he would rather take them in broken doses. This mode was perhaps very unjust to some of the banks, against whom no imputation of unfairness could justly be made. There was at least one, against which he believed nothing had been discovered. It was, perhaps, confounding the innocent with the guilty. He was for letting each institution stand or fall by its own merits; and rather than sanction this practice of ushering into existence a whole brood at a time, and giving a triumph to what was evil, by yo

consideration of the Senate's bill, if no other gentleman would attempt to secure the separate action of this House upon each bank, he was not sure but he would do it. At present, he was in favor of postponing the consideration of the Senate bill till after the report of the select committee of this House was printed.

After a few remarks by Messrs. HARDIN and W. B. SHEPARD,

Mr. BOON withdrew the motion to postpone.

Mr. HAWES then moved to commit the bill to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union; which was disagreed to.

Mr. GILLET then moved to postpone the bill until to-morrow, and proceeded very briefly to give his reasons for making the motion.

After some further remarks by Messrs. THOMAS, GARLAND of Virginia, MERCER, JENIFER, PEARCE of Rhode Island, HOAR, and WM. B. SHEPARD, the hour arrived for proceeding to the special order of the day.

IMPROVEMENT OF HARBORS.

Mr. PATTON said he agreed with his colleague that all these measures ought to be put by their friends in the same bill. They all belonged to the same family; constituted branches of the same system of internal improvements; rested upon the same kind of interpretation of the constitutional powers of the Congress of the United States; were to be defended by the same arguments, or could not be defended at all; all the various parts of this system were liable also to the same objections on the score of expediency, productive of the same odious inequality in reference to the various parts of the Union, of the same kind of pernicious increase of the patronage of the Government, tending irresistibly to the same extravagant and injudicious expenditure, or rather waste, of the public money, and depending more or less for their success upon a species of log-rolling, or, as they call it in the Western country, "cohogling," most disreputable and corrupting. Being thus joined together in principle, or want of principle, he was at a loss to understand how the friends of all should be willing to have them put asunder, especially after the remark made yesterday by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, that they must stand or fall together; by which it now seems be meant that the friends of each must go for all, as being bound together by the same interests, though he seems to apprehend that there must be danger of the whole being sunk if they were embarked in the same vesselan apprehension which has some foundation in the danger of the public sense being shocked by the enormous amount and partial distribution of the appropriations asked for by these various bills from the Committee on Commerce and on Roads and Canals.

Mr. PATTON said that he had no stomach for any of them; that he had a mortal aversion to physic of every kind, and especially in broken doses. He was opposed to swallowing these doses in any form in which they could be administered; but if we are to be forced to take them, if they must be gulped down, he thought they ought all to go together.

I did not expect (said Mr. P.) to have said any thing in opposition to these bills. I know, from the experience I have had here, how hopeless it is to make any resistance to them, or to any bills framed as these arecontaining appropriations for a majority of the States of the Union, and confined almost exclusively to those States whose representatives have no constitutional scruples against them, and whose constituents have a direct pecuniary interest in their passage. I had therefore made up my mind to submit in silence to the infliction of this wound upon the constitution, and to the large draught

upon the common Treasury made by these bills for local objects and partial benefits. After the remark made by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, on yesterday, that every body admitted the constitutional authority of Congress to appropriate money for clearing out and making harbors, for clearing out rivers, and removing sandbars, and making surveys preparatory to such works, I felt bound to speak, at least for the purpose of "excluding the conclusion" that this sweeping claim of undisputed power was acquiesced in. I enter my protest against it. These measures are put distinctly in the preamble to the bill upon the ground of security and extension of commerce; and for such a purpose I deny the authority of Congress to appropriate money for harbors, rivers, and surveys. I can very well conceive that it may be competent for Congress, in reference to the safety and useful operations of our naval force, and as incidental to the authority to raise and support a navy, to deepen the harbors on our seacoast and the lakes, connected with our navy yards, naval depots, &c., or even to clear out and make harbors, with a view to be used by our ships of war as places of safe anchorage and security from storms of wind, or to guard our maritime cities in time of war. That such improvements, made with these objects, and authorized by this obvious deduction from the power to sustain a navy, should indirectly increase the facilities and promote the interests of commerce, constitutes no objection to the exercise of the power in proper places, and to a proper extent; indeed, such incidental benefits to commerce are subjects of felicitation whenever they occur.

The broad ground assumed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. SUTHERLAND,] and carried out practically in the provisions of these bills, in my humble judgment, cannot be maintained upon any fair reading of the constitution, and without opening a door wide enough for the admission of all the various sorts of internal improvement which have ever been claimed, whether upon land or water, whether national or local, whether above or below ports of entry. Whence is the power derived? From that clause of the constitution which gives Congress power "to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States," &c.

The whole authority conferred by this clause obviously is to give Congress the right to prescribe the terms upon which trade shall be carried on; the tax which shall be imposed upon imports and exports; and the discriminating duties upon home and foreign tonnage; and all the various regulations for entering goods, vessels, &c. &c. upon importation, and of registering, clearance, &c. upon exportation. The regulation of commerce between foreign States has nothing to do with making the harbors, clearing out the rivers, and removing ob. structions, any more than the right to regulate commerce among the several States confers the right to make roads and canals on which the people may travel in carrying on their trade. The constitution, in each case, presupposes the existence of channels of communication, and only intends to give Congress the right to make regulations, by means of which trade may be carried on upon known fixed principles. To suppose that this gave Congress the right to legislate upon every matter and in any way which would improve the facilities and increase the prof. its of trade between us and foreign nations, or between the several States, would launch us into a boundless ocean of power never yet claimed or even dreamed of by the most latitudinous expounders of our constitution. It involves an utter perversion of the letter and meaning of the constitution to construe an authority to make a regulation into one to make a harbor or to make a road or a canal, or to clear out obstructions from a river. The constitution gives Congress the right to "regulate the value of coin." Upon the interpretation now contended

[H. OF R.

for, this would have given the right to coin money, to build establishments for individuals or States to coin money at, and even to furnish the metal out of which the coin should be made. But the framers of the constitution thought it necessary to give the power expressly "to coin money," as well as the power to "regulate the value" of it. This interpretation of the power to regulate commerce is infinitely more questionable than the one under which the power to protect domestic manufactures was claimed. There the means by which the end was effected were regulations of commerce; here, the means resorted to have nothing to do with regulations, according to any meaning attached to that word, as it is used in the English language. It is not my purpose, however, to go into an elaborate argument upon this often-contested question.

If, however, Mr. Chairman, the powers claimed by this bill be legitimate, what becomes of the principles laid down in the veto message of the President in regard to the Maysville road? Many of the appropriations in these bills are for harbors and rivers where no ship of war, or sloop, or even barge from a man of war, is ever expected to be seen. They are wholly unconnected with the object of providing and maintaining a navy; in many cases, for places of very limited trade, and wholly within the jurisdiction of a single State. I call, then, upon all those who united with me in hailing the Maysville veto as constituting a new era in our affairs, and as putting a very material check, though not entire end, to the sys. tem of extravagant and unconstitutional appropriations, under the name of internal improvements, to stand their ground, and maintain the principles then proclaimed. No man can prove that, while an appropriation for a turnpike road from Maysville to Lexington is unconstitu tional, appropriations for clearing out every little harbor and every navigable river on the Atlantic and the lakes are constitutional. What is it which stamps the character of nationality upon the latter, and dubs the former as local? I am not sufficiently learned in the science of political distinctions to perceive the difference. If many people engaged in trade from a distance, and from other States, are interested in each of these appropriations, why, it is equally true that many people of different States, engaged in trade, were interested in the making the turnpike road from Maysville to Lexington; and if this is all that is necessary to give a character of nationality to any work, why, upon the same principle, Gadsby's hotel, or Walker's eating-house, would be entitled to the fostering care of the Government, as "national establishments." The President repudiated all such considerations in his Maysville veto; and I hope he, and all who agreed with him then, and who rejoiced with me in the prospect held out in that message that we were about to recover "the lost rights of the States," will repudiate them now, and give a quietus to these harbor and river bills.

There is another idea which is frequently thrown out in regard to these appropriations for harbors, which is wholly unfounded. It is frequently said that measures of this description are coeval with the Government; that they have gone on with all parties, and must soon be regarded as not open to objections of power or principle. This is a mistake in fact, although it seems to have received countenance, to some extent, from the President, in his remarks upon the bill containing the appropriation for the Wabash, which he refused to sign. It is true only to this extent: that, among the first acts of the Government, was one which assumed jurisdiction of, and exercised the power of building, light-houses, piers, buoys, &c. That may be justified; and confined to the sea and bay coast, and to our large seaport harbors, I think is justified by the authority expressly given to provide and maintain a navy, as fairly incidental to that

power, when bona fide exercised, in reference to the safety and utility of the navy; at all events, to that extent the power has been uniformly, and without dispute, assumed and exercised, and I, for one, should not be disposed now to disturb it. But not so with this authority to make and deepen harbors, and clear out rivers. That has been, comparatively, of recent origin, and uniformly contested. To be sure, its approaches were very gradual, and the extent to which it was at first exercised so inconsiderable as to attract at first very little notice, and occasion not very serious dispute. I propose to look a little into its history and progress. These appropriations took their rise in 1816, the era of the tariff of duties with a view to protection, the era of the commencement of the general system of internal improvements, and the era of the revival of the Bank of the United States. The very first bill that I have been able to find, under the head of appropriations "for surveys, preservation and repairs of islands, harbors, and rivers," was passed in April, 1816.

[Mr. MERCER here said that his colleague was mistaken; that Mr. Madison had very early in the Govern ment proposed to have a road made from Georgia to Maine, and that during General Washington's administration an appropriation had been made for improving a harbor at Marcus Hook.]

Mr. PATTON resumed, and said he was well acquainted with the history of that resolution, introduced by Mr. Madison in 1796, which proprosed to inquire into the propriety of making a continuous road from Maine to Georgia, for conveying the mail. I remember, too, that Mr. Jefferson immediately wrote Mr. Madison a letter, in which he earnestly remonstrated against the power recognised in the resolution, and pointed out the objections to it, both on grounds of want of constitutional power and on grounds of inexpediency, and Mr. Madison did not press the resolution, and nothing was ever done under it.

As to the harbor at Marcus Hook, this is the first time I have heard of it. What were the circumstances under which the appropriation was made, whether it was founded upon a claim of power such as that I am now considering, or as incidental to the navy power, I know not. It was, at all events, a single case, standing alone from 1789 to 1816, and surely not much to be weighed as an authoritative precedent. I repeat that nothing like regular legislation upon subjects of this sort is to be found until 1816, and, indeed, until 1823; and for many years, down even to 1827, the appropriations for objects of this kind were so inconsiderable in amount, and so few in number, as to warrant the belief that the attention of Congress was never attracted very strongly to the questionable character of the power exercised, or the dangerous lengths to which it might be pushed.

I copy an abstract of the appropriations passed under the above head from 1816 to 1827, viz: 1816, April 27 1821, March 3 1822, May 7

1823, March 3

1823, March 3

1824, May 26

1826, March 25

1827, March 2 1824, May 26 1825, March 3 1826, March 25

.

$30,0000 2,500 11,500 6,000

150 20,000

7,000 2,000 20,000 5,712 13,185

400 52,973 50,000

200 3,500 3,000

1826, May 20

1826, May 20 1826, May 20 1826, May 20 1826, May 20

[JUNE 24, 1836.

$24,620

400

200

1,000

10,000

I have not the means or time to trace the progress of this thing since 1827; but the above presents sufficient matter for reflection. The gross amount of all the appropriations between 1816 and 1827, a period of eleven years, amounts to a little upwards of $300,000; and these bills which we are now passing through, without a hope of resisting them, contain appropriations for old and new works, amounting to about ($1,700,000) one million seven hundred thousand dollars for one single year. Such is the encroaching character of this kind of legislation; so extravagant and enormous are the appropriations which we are called on to sanction. But how desperate, in the very nature of the thing, must be in general any efforts to defeat such a measure. Here you have a bill propo sing appropriations for a large number of the States, enlisting thus in its support so many representatives as can conscientiously support a measure of the kind. Those States the support of whose representatives cannot be obtained, from constitutional scruples, or something else, get no portion of this large expenditure. By way of illustration of this, look at the fact, that out of the vast appropriation contained in these bills, exceeding a million and a half, there is but $500 for Virginia, with all her extent of seacoast, of bay coast, her numerous harbors, and noble rivers. This unequal distribution of the benefits of the Government in this form is perhaps unavoidable, and constitutes one of the great objections to the exercise of the jurisdiction over subjects local in their character, and necessarily partial in their operation. These are some of the general objections to this system of internal improvements, even when the expenditure is entirely judicious, and all the benefits expected by the friends of the system are realized. And now, having appealed to all those who sustained the Maysville veto to carry out their own principles, and resist this vast expenditure of money for objects, nine tenths of which are, in every point of view, merely local in their character, I now ask all those gentlemen who disapproved the Maysville veto, and who derive no benefit from this new mode of making internal improvementsupon all gentlemen from the interior favorable to the general system of internal improvements—whether they will give their sanction to these measures? Can they reconcile it to themselves to unite in making appropriations for internal improvements by water, when it is estopped by land-that the money of their constituents shall be taken in these large amounts to improve harbors, rivers, and islands, in which they are in no way interested, when they and their constituents are not allowed, either because they travel by land, or because they are situated above a port of entry, to participate in any way in the benefit of these appropriations? If the power was clear, if it were possible for the Government of the United States to exercise such powers judiciously and economically, the inequality of the distribution of the benefits of such appropriations would prevent me from giving them my approbation.

But there is another point of view in which this subject is worthy of the serious consideration of the House. The bill making appropriations for old works was presented to the House accompanied by a report from the Committee of Ways and Means, to which I wish earnestly to solicit the attention of the House. It will be seen from that report, made by the gentleman from Maine, [Mr. SMITH,] who reported the bill, that that committee are by no means anxious for the passage of the bill, but, on the contrary, it is evident that the committee doubted very much the expediency of passing the bill, even if they were not decidedly opposed to it. It will be very extraordinary if this House can consent to pass either of these bills in the face of the facts stated in that report.

The committee say, they cannot "but yield, in a meas. ure, to the apprehension that there is a real necessity for hesitation, if not of actual reform, in the further prosecution of public works upon the same system which has of late years obtained under the Government. The commentary upon it, which is furnished in the naked history of nearly every work brought before your committee for additional appropriations, characterizes this system as expensive, yet feeble; flattering, and yet uncertain in all its operations and results, unless it be viewed only with reference to its fitness to the purposes, to the individual wealth and profit, of the agents and contractors immediately concerned. To test the justness of this remark, reference is made to the connected history of these several works, extracted from the annual reports of the engineer department, and appended to this report. The same reference will demonstrate that in none of these works has the original estimate of cost, or of the probable effects of each expenditure, been verified by experience; but, on the contrary, in most of them a very wide result from the original estimates has already been exhibited, and without furnishing a certain accomplishment of the object desired in a single case. In many of these works, moreover, the appropriations already made and expended have not been confined within an excess of one hundred per cent. above the original estimate of their cost, respectively. [It is printed fifty per cent." in the document, but Mr. SMITH says it ought to be one hundred.] In some of them the appropriations now asked, in order to continue them in progress through only a single coming year, actually exceeds the aggregate original estimate of the cost of their entire construction, and this notwithstanding a series of annual appropriations have heretofore been made for them, also far exceeding in amount such original esti mate. To add to our wonder, in neither class of the lastdescribed works is there any good degree of certainty held out to Congress that such additional expenditures, enormous as they are becoming, will secure a successful termination of the enterprise."

However much we may wonder that the committee could have been prevailed upon to report a bill to continue works thus described, it will be still more extraor dinary, if, with such facts staring us in the face, presented to us by our own committee, we can pass a bill ap propriating nearly a million of dollars to works on which so much has already been expended, and of which we have no hope of a successful termination at any time; but, on the contrary, the appropriations required for which become larger and larger the longer they get on. How forcibly does the report illustrate the truth of the remark of the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. BELL] on yester day, that this kind of legislation was "a bottomless pit of expenditure!" More than that, it is a pit into which the stream of public appropriation is flowing in a stream of perpetually increasing force and volume.

Let us examine this report a little further, to see the character of these works, and what encouragement we

[H. OF R.

have to go on, either with the old works, or to begin new ones. After speaking of the miscalculations as to the times these works were to take to be completed, and the overthrow of the original plans in many cases, the report proceeds: "In some cases the effect of these miscalculations has been a total abandonment of the original plan for some untried substitute, as in the report of the works at Cunningham creek in 1828, and of Red river in 1832, and of Marcus Hook, &c. in 1834: in others a greater depth of water than was anticipated or consis. tent with the permanency of the work, requiring in consequence a filling up, with new materials, of the excavations caused by the earlier expenditures of labor and money, as in the report on the works at Presque Isle in 1827, and in fact that on the works at Grand river in 1833; in other instances, new and unexpected channels, endangering the whole improvement, as in the case of Presque Isle, have been caused, or new deposites of sand, threatening to destroy all the natural advantages with which the plan of promised improvements was blessed before the work of alleged improvement was commenced," &c. &c.

What an encouraging account here is to go on with our improvements, and begin new ones! In some cases, the whole money wasted and thrown away, and the whole plan abandoned; in others, a sort of weaving of Penelope's web-filling up this year what had been dug out the year before; in others, the effect of our miscalled improvement, causing new obstructions and sandbars, to the serious detriment of those interested in the navigation, which we have destroyed, in our feeble and injudicious efforts to improve.

I conclude by moving to strike out the enacting clause of the bill.

REDUCTION OF DUTIES, &c.

Mr. McKAY moved the suspension of the rules for the purpose of enabling him to offer the following resolutions; which were read:

Resolved, That the power of taking money from the people, by laying and collecting duties, imposts, and excises, is one of the most sacred of the trusts vested in the General Government; that it is enforced solely to enable it to command the necessary means to execute the objects for which it was instituted, and that to exact money from the people when not necessary for those objects, or more than may be necessary, would be, on the part of the Government, a manifest breach of trust, and to the people unjust and oppressive.

Resolved, That the revenue receivable under the present laws is, and will be, more than is required for the fair and legitimate wants of the Government, and that provision ought to be made for its reduction.

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury report to this House, at the commencement of the next session, what alteration can be made in the existing tariff of duties, consistently with the principles of the several acts imposing duties upon imports, with a view to reduc tion.

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury also report upon the best mode of diminishing the revenue arising from the public lands, without retarding the settlement of the new States, or impairing the interests of the General Government; and, generally, his views as to the best mode of reducing the revenue to the fair and constitutional wants of the Government.

Mr. MANN, of New York, called for the yeas and nays on the motion, and they were ordered.

Mr. McKAY moved a call of the House, in order that the House might at once express their sentiments on the subject, and not be troubled any more with it; and upon this motion he asked the yeas and nays, which were ordered.

The question being taken, the motion for a call of the House was agreed to: Yeas 105, nays 74.

After some time, on motion of Mr. HIESTER, all further proceeding in the call was dispensed with.

The question was taken on the motion to suspend the rules, and decided in the negative: Yeas 124, nays 66not quite two thirds.

Mr. McKAY gave notice that, on Monday morning, he would offer the same motion, and he hoped that there would then be a full House.

IMPROVEMENT OF HARBORS.

The House, in pursuance of the special order, resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, (Mr. LINCOLN in the chair,) for the further consideration of the bill making appropriations for certain harbors for the year 1836. Mr. LANE deprecated the delay which would be caused by a long political discussion upon all the exciting topics of the last ten years. He hoped the bill itself would be acted upon; and if such was the wish of the House, he would waive his right to the floor; though, if such a discussion should take place, he should like to reply to the remarks of the gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. BELL.]

Mr. VINTON proposed an amendment for the improve. ment of the Maumee river.

Mr. CRANE, after some remarks, called for the reading of some papers recommending the appropriation, and then proceeded to argue in its behalf.

Some remarks were made upon the proposed amendment by Messrs. CHAMBERS, VANDERPOEL, and SUTHERLAND.

Mr. MERCER objected to the bill that it contained items of appropriation upon subjects not within the scope of the Committee on Commerce, and which had been referred to the Committee on Roads and Canals. He said such a practice would lead to very loose legislation. It was the duty of the Committee on Roads and Canals to survey the whole country, to understand the wants of the whole, and to see that the public funds were fairly apportioned.

[JUNE 24, 1836.

bay had yielded, in 1832, the gross revenue of $12.50, and had cost the Government over $700 for the salaries of the costom-house officers. Yet, he said, the House was now called upon to pay $51,000 for the improvement of that bay.

Mr. WHITTLESEY, of Ohio, said the gentleman from Kentucky was grossly deceived in relation to the business of that port, or he had attempted to palm off a gross imposition upon the committee; and he went on to show that a vast proportion of the commerce of the West with New York and the seaboard found its way to Buffalo and the lakes, and rendered these collection districts necessary. The business at these ports was great and increasing, and did not depend upon a foreign or Canadian commerce, upon which revenue could be collected; still the ports were no less useful and necessary.

Mr. SUTHERLAND begged gentlemen of the committee not to press each particular improvement of a river for which an interest might be felt. The bill had been complained of as already too large; and if gentlemen went on to introduce appropriations for every river in the country, the whole would be lost. He hoped the bill would be allowed to pass as it was, and that the consideration of other rivers would be taken up in their turn. EVENING SESSION.

The committee again took up the bill making apprapriations for the improvement of certain harbors therein named for the year 1836.

The question pending was the amendment of Mr. VINTON, for the improvement of the Maumee river, $51,000, and Mr. GALBRAITH's amendment to the amendment, for the improvement of the Allegany river from Pittsburg to the New York State line, $50,000.

Mr. PATTON moved to strike out the enacting clause of the bill.

Mr. GILLET said it was with unfeigned reluctance that he rose, at this period of the session, to participate in debate; and he would not now do so, did he not fully believe that his duty to himself, and some of his friends, rendered the obligation imperative upon him. He considered it due to himself to defend measures of high moment, which he had aided in bringing before the House; and also to repel the charges which had been made against the committee of which he was a member. He also deemed it his duty to defend his friends, and particularly those whose position precluded them from replying in proper person, here or elsewhere. He could assure the committee that he would not occupy one moment of their attention beyond what was necessary for these ob

If I understand the question, (said Mr. G.,) it is on a motion made by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. PATTON] to strike from this bill its enacting clause. Should this motion prevail, and be concurred in by the House, it will defeat the whole bill. This is the object of the motion. If I rightly understand the rules of the House, this motion opens the whole merits of the bill. Incidentally the policy of raising revenue, and the best method of disposing of it when raised, whether for such or other objects, may also be discussed. When we are considering the question of constructing light-houses and harbors, for aiding our commerce, and protecting the lives of our fellow-citizens, we may also very properly examine the question, whether, under the forms of the constitution, a better and more politic disposition can be made of our revenue. If such a discussion could be carried on for the sole purpose of arriving at the true national policy, uninfluenced by expected partisan results, we might fairly expect that beneficial consequences would flow from it. But when the interests of political aspirants are interwoven with, and their prospects likely to be influenced by, the result, we may well fear that much