35TH CONG.... 1ST SESS. ing, at all; therefore, whatever my vote might be on the amendment, for it or against it, I shall be constrained to vote that it is in order, although I may be opposed to the amendment. Mr. PUGH. It seems to me that the decision of the Chair is one to which there can be no answer made. The Senate is the creature of the Constitution, and there are as many rules of order for this body, in the Constitution, as in our rulesjust as many; and they are as completely binding-yea, and more so. We can change our rules, but we cannot change the Constitution. The Constitution says that each Senator shall have one vote. Suppose I attempt to vote twice on a question: where is the rule of the Senate to prevent me? There is no rule of the Senate; there is a rule of the Constitution. It is out of order clearly. The Constitution says that every bill shall be read three times in three days. Suppose I attempt to put a bill on its passage after its first reading: that is out of order, because the Constitution says it shall be read three times. I could name several cases in a few moments. The Constitution has prescribed certain rules of order for us, and we must obey them. We have prescribed others for Ourselves; and those, too, we must obey until we change them. Now, the Constitution says that very bill for raising revenue shall originate with he House of Representatives. A bill which raises evenue cannot originate here; it is out of order. We cannot entertain it; it ought to be thrown out in its first reading; and the mere fact that the rule of order is in the Constitution gives it no less force, ertainly, than if it were within our own rules; nd therefore I say that, in my judgment, the mendment offered by the honorable Senator from lississippi is out of order. It violates not a quesion of constitutional law, but a plain rule of rder written in the Constitution; and therefore I sist that the question shall be taken so that we ay know in the future what is in order. Mr. TOOMBS. Mr. President, the Chair has ut the question in the only way it can possibly e raised. The idea that an amendment is out f order because it is unconstitutional, cannot be aintained for a moment. That is no test of orer, for according to my judgment I could have bjected on the same ground that the bill was out order. It never would get in order with me, or I have no more doubt of the unconstitutionity of the bill, than I have of my own existence. ould I, therefore, get up and say, you shall not troduce unconstitutional bills, you shall not inoduce unconstitutional amendments? It is all mistake. The only question is: is this amendent within the rules of your body? It is an mendment in the second degree, and therefore order; hence I shall vote that it is in order; there in be no question about that point on any rule f ours. I have no doubt, however, that it is unonstitutional; and yet I shall vote for it. I have perfect right to vote for an unconstitutional mendment to an unconstitutional bill. I will put y rider on it that will kill it. Though it is unonstitutional, I shall vote that it is in order, and will put it on the bill if I can. The business the Senate would be embarrassed at every stage, a question could be raised as to the unconstituonality of an amendment. I might raise the ime objection to every bill for internal improve ents. Mr. WILSON. I understood the Senator from eorgia to unite with the Senator from Virginia the point of order in regard to the amendment bmitted by the Senator from Rhode Island to le loan bill. Mr. TOOMBS. No, sir; I said it was unconitutional, but not out of order. I could not vote rany bill with it in, on the constitutional point. his, however, is an amendment within the rules the Senate; it is an amendment to an amendent. Whether that amendment is constitutional r unconstitutional is not a question of order, and ever can be. The Constitution is the rule for y voting for measures; but it is perfectly cometent and parliamentary for me to make an unonstitutional measure as good as I can, even by 1 unconstitutional amendment. I may be wrong this, but I think I am correct, according to all rliamentary law. I intend to vote against the hole bill; but I will put the amendment on it cause it will be better in that form. The Constitution says-I do not quote its words, but the idea is in the minds of all of us-that this body shall not originate bills to raise revenue. Now, a member rises here and proposes a bill to raise revenue. It is not enough to say that the bill is unconstitutional. That may be said, undoubtedly; but over and above that, it is to be said the Constitution declares that this body shall not originate such a bill. Then it is a question of I look on it as most extraordinary that, in the present state of the Treasury, when gentlemen know we have not the money for these improvements, they should press appropriations for them; and I am still more amazed at gentlemen who claim to be connected with the dominant party that they should, in the face of the Senate and of the country and of their constituents, vote to spend five hundred thousand or a million dollars for these objects, without giving the administra-order. tive Government a dollar to pay it with. It is very extraordinary, whatever may be their opinions on internal improvements. I can understand that an Opposition who desire to embarrass an Administration, to throw trouble in their way, would raise all the objections they could, but I am surprised that others should join them in this. Certainly, if these appropriations are to be made, the means of making them should be furnished. I say the Chair has put the question right: "Is the amendment in order?" In my judgment, it is within the rules of your body, and that is all that is involved in the question of order-not whether it is constitutional. I shall therefore vote, without hesitation, that it is in order, and then vote it in the bill if I can, and then vote against the whole bill if it be put in. Mr. TRUMBULL. I take it, Mr. President, that questions of order are to be summarily decided; and I must confess that I am very much surprised that questions as to the constitutionality of measures are to be treated here as questions of order, and submitted as such to the decision of the Senate. I shall vote with the Senator from Georgia. I have no sort of doubt that this amendment is unconstitutional-that is, that we have no right to pass a bill of the character indicated by this amendment; but it seems to me it is not to be raised as a question of order. I shall vote against the amendment without considering its merits when we come to vote upon it; and the conclusive reason why I shall vote against it is that we have no right to originate such a proposion; but still I am not for deciding whether a bill can be introduced into this body upon constitutional grounds as a question of order. I will determine that when I come to vote upon the measure. As has been very truly remarked, there is hardly a great question that comes up here about which somebody does not raise a constitutional point; and are we to go off into a discussion of order, and have it submitted to the Senate to be determined by a solemn vote whether a bill is constitutional or not, as a question of order. I do not think such a question should be submitted to the Senate in that form. The VICE PRESIDENT. The 6th rule of the Senate provides that the President may call for the sense of the Senate on any question of order. The question is raised whether this amendment to the amendment is in order or not. The Chair believes it to belong to that class of questions which it does not become him to decide upon as being in or out of order. For whatever reason Senators may vote, undoubtedly it may be broadly stated that the amendment is or is not in order. That may be predicated of every amendment. The question being raised, the Chair presents it to the Senate: "Is this amendment in order?" Mr. FOSTER. It seems to me, Mr. President, that this question can be disposed of in very few words. The Constitution undoubtedly is of higher obligation than any rules of order which this body can make. No doubt we may introduce a bill here which, in the judgment of a portion of the members,is in contravention of the Constitution,and in the judgment of another portion is not. It is not, in my judgment, in that state of things, a proper test to apply to the bill when it is introduced, to make a question of order on the ground that the party making the point of order believes the bill is unconstitutional, and can show it ever so much to be unconstitutional. That is not a question of order; because members may differ about that, and each member will vote upon the bill according to his judgment of it, as a constitutional or an unconstitutional measure, when he comes to vote on it. But where the Constitution itself determines which of the two branches of Congress may originate a bill, it presents a different question altogether-one as wide as the poles from the question of the mere unconstitutionality of a bill. Mr. PUGH. I would suggest to the Senator that the bill is not unconstitutional; it only begins unconstitutionally. Mr. FOSTER. I agree that my friend from Ohio is right, because, if we pass such a bill, and the House of Representatives pass it and it becomes a law, it is as good a law as was ever made. We cannot go back of the bill as passed, and show in the Supreme Court that it originated in the wrong body. We must make the objec tion in limine, or we cannot make it at all. The House of Representatives, when the bill is sent to them, may throw it under their table, because they say the Senate has no business to originate it; but if they pass it, it is as good a law as Congress ever made, so far as the origin of the bill is concerned. Suppose the Constitution had said the Senate should originate no bill, had created the Senate and House of Representatives as it now has, but had given the House of Representatives the sole power to originate all bills: when under these circumstances, were in session, a member rose in his place and offered a bill on a proper subject of legislation, would it not at once be objectionable upon the ground that, in this body, we could not originate bills? Would not every member say amen to that? Clearly I think every member would. Well, so far as this proposition is concerned, the Constitution has said that very thing; it has said the Senate shall not originate such a bill as this amendment is. In that state of things, I say it is clearly a question of order, because we are forbidden to entertain or consider the proposition. we, Mr. SEWARD. Will the Senator allow me? I wish to ask whether this question which is submitted is amendable; whether the question which has been submitted by the Chair to the Senate can be amended? The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair will hear any amendment the Senator may offer, and then decide. Mr. SEWARD. Because I suppose what is covered by it is, whether the proposed amendment is constitutional; and if it is, I should like to move to amend the question so that the point to be submitted shall be, whether this amendment is consistent with the Constitution. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair would not consider that in order. Mr. FOSTER. It seems to me that the question cannot be more fairly and directly presented than in the mode it is proposed to be presented to the Chair. With the suggestions I have made, asking to some extent pardon of the Senate for intruding when the question was about to be put, I trust we shall have a vote. Mr. THOMPSON, of Kentucky. It is very seldom that I have anything to say about points of order; they are matters in which I take very little interest, though I was presiding officer of a legislative body once, and had very little trouble in getting along. The Senator from Mississippi submits his amendment. It is objected that it is out of order, and I understand the Chair proposes to leave it to the sense of the Senate to say whether it is in order or out of order. We have rules, governing the proceedings of the Senate, and under those rules any proposition is to be received that is pertinent, that is not scandalous, that is not objectionable to anything in the rules. It is said this amendment is unconstitutional. That takes the whole question for granted. You might just as well say this is unreasonable. You do not know what may be decided about the Constitution. You are not to take it, as has been suggested, in limine; but you are to take it when you come to the death-voting upon it. It is not submitted-constitutional or unconstitutional? Why sir, suppose I make a motion, and a Senator gets up and says my motion is out of order. I ask him why? "Oh," says he, "your motion is an 35TH CONG....1ST SESS. unconstitutional motion." Is that allowable? That is the case here. Mr. FOSTER. Will the Senator pardon me for interrupting him? Mr. THOMPSON, of Kentucky. Certainly. Mr. FOSTER. I will take the gentleman's own illustration. If the Constitution has said such a motion as that should not be made in the body, I ask him, then, if he could make it? If the Constitution had said in express terms that such a motion as he proposed to make should not be made in the Senate, could he make it? Mr. THOMPSON, of Kentucky. I am not making any motion. I say the objection to this amendment is on the ground that it involves the constitutional proposition, the origination of a revenue measure by a proceeding in this House. I say that amounts to nothing, as a question of order. You, sir, must be governed by the rules, and, with the highest respect to the body, I think, if I were in your place, I would decide it in or out of order, and if they did not like it they might let it alone. Mr. HALE. I did not think, sir, that I should be led into this debate; but the honorable Senator from Connecticut has advanced a proposition which I think erroneous; and as it may have some influence here, I desire to have it considered. He says that if a bill is originated in this body against the provisions of the Constitution, and is carried to the other House, and enacted there, and becomes a law, no court can go behind the record, and say that it was not constitutionally enacted, and adjudge it null. I dissent from that entirely, and I believe that several of the States in this Union have decided differently. I know that the supreme court of my own State have, within the past year, decided that, where the constitution requires the Houses to keep a journal, and requires bills to go through certain stages, and it appears, on an inspection of the journal, that a bill did not go through the stages required by the constitution, notwithstanding it has all the forms of law, signed by both presiding officers, and approved by the Governor, it is not a law. The honorable Senator from Georgia tells me that such has been the ruling in the State of Georgia. The Constitution says certain things shall be done, and that each House shall keep a Journal to show what it has done. If it appear by its Journal that a bill which the Constitution says shall not originate here, has originated here, I contend that it would be the clearest duty, and within the legitimate province of the Supreme Court, or any other court before whom the matter might be brought, to pronounce that, although such a bill had all the forms of law, it was not a law. For that reason, I think it is exceedingly important that the Senate should settle-I do not care whether you call it a constitutional question or a question of order and should settle rightfully, whether it is within the legitimate province of this body to originate such a measure. Mr. FOSTER. Allow me to ask the Senator, before he sits down, how, after a bill has passed the Senate and House of Representatives, and becomes a law and has all the forms which such a bill ordinarily has, he would ascertain in the courts, in which House it had originated? Mr. HALE. In the easiest way in the world. By looking at the Journals. The Constitution says we shall keep Journals, and they are kept for the very purpose of ascertaining just such facts as those. Mr. DAVIS. I think Senators on the other side have pushed the argument greatly beyond || Internal Improvements-Mr. Collamer. acting now under the judgment which the Senate Mr. COLLAMER. I perceive that gentlemen Mr. CLINGMAN. Allow me to ask the Senator a question in regard to a difficulty that occurred to my mind; and it will illustrate this particular point. The proposition that he and others voted for was to adopt the home valuation. Well, I find that, taking railroad bar-iron for example, when it would be worth at Liverpool about twenty-six dollars a ton, its selling price in New York would be about forty dollars; and, by the last statement I was able to get, when the selling price in New York was sixty-two dollars, it was thirtyeight and a fraction at Liverpool Mr. COLLAMER. This is a pretty long question. We shall want a surveyor, with a compass and chain, to run it out. Mr. CLINGMAN. I come to the point in this way: the home valuation is fifty per cent. higher than the foreign. Mr. COLLAMER. I deny the fact. Mr. CLINGMAN. It is on bar-iron, as the gentleman will find if he will take the lists of prices for the last ten years. Mr. COLLAMER. That must be owing to the freight and duty. Mr. CLINGMAN. Exactly; and the very amendment the Senator voted for, adopted the New York valuation, and that valuation was equivalent to raising the duty on bar-iron from twenty-four per cent., as it now is to thirty-six per cent. on the foreign valuation. If that was right, what is the objection to this? If you could raise the duty by that form of language, thirtysix per cent., what is the objection to making the change now suggested? Mr. COLLAMER. I will say to the gentleman about his question, as the witness said to the lawyer, after a very long one, with a great many expletives-"I do not know," said he, "about that, may it please the court; I cannot answer that question now, without a surveyor with his compass and chain to run it out and get at what it is." [Laughter.] I am not proposing to make any tariff speech at this time. The gen SENATE. tleman is mistaken in saying that I voted for that proposition. Mr. CLINGMAN. I beg pardon. I thought the Senator was among those who voted for it. It was generally voted for by his political friends, and I supposed he voted with them. Mr. COLLAMER. The gentleman assumes a great many things in his question. In the first place, I was saying that we viewed the proposi tion of the Senator from Rhode Island as nothing more nor less than an attempt by some efficient legislation to obtain the revenues and duties for which the existing laws provide. I deny that the foreign valuation is the present law, or ever has been since 1799. Our duties have been most generally specific; but that our ad valorem duties, so far as they have existed, have been laid on any foreign valuation, never was true, and is not true to-day, except so far as we are cheated. The act of 1795 provides for assessing the duty at the place of importation. Mr. CLINGMAN rose. Mr. COLLAMER. I understand what I am about. The gentleman need not trouble me with any more of his questions. He will get his answer, and get it understandingly too, if he chooses to attend to me. Neither shall I be embarrassed by the gentleman's question. I shall not be thrown off my guard in the least by it. The act of 1795 provides for levying the duty on the foreign price of the goods as put on board the vessel, with the charges of getting them on board; and it adds "all other costs and charges except insurance and commissions," which, of course, included the cost of getting them to this country. What did that mean? Can any man on earth tell me what that means? Take it as it reads, and can there be a mistake about it? It is that you take the foreign price, with the addition of all the costs and charges, until you get the article here as the mere means, the scaffolding, the elements, out of which to get the price on which to lay your duty when it arrives here. The duty is not laid on the foreign valuation; it is laid upon the price abroad, together with the costs and charges, with certain exceptions mentioned. What costs and charges? Those of shipping the article and getting it to America. All costs and charges, except insurance and commissions, are to be put on the foreign_price—what for? To get the price at home. That is the law now. We find, however, that we are deceived in these ele ments, we are cheated in these means, and we want to carry out the true intention of the law by getting at the price in the market, simply by going into the market and ascertaining what the price is, and thus carry out the law. That it will pro duce more money we know. That is the very reason we want it now; but it is to produce no more than the law intended. That is the char acter of that proposition. Now, sir, with the explanation I have made about raising revenue, dismissing the idea that "raising" means 66 increasing," I say still that any measure which institutes means of getting money into the Treasury is a revenue measure. This amendment is evidently of that character. The mover of it does not disguise that, but he uses the argumentum ad hominem on the idea that he is going to get us to vote for this measure be cause he says we are inconsistent with regard to another. Mr. DAVIS. Allow me to say to the Senator in all frankness that it is not merely an argumen tum ad hominem, but I am in earnest; if we are going to spend this money, and have not got it, I want to increase the revenue, and I think the proper way to do it is to tax the free list. Mr. COLLAMER. The gentleman does not think I wish to misrepresent him? Mr. DAVIS. Certainly not. Mr. COLLAMER. What I meant by the argu mentum ad hominem, was that the Senator must have reasoned in this way: "I am moving this not because I have a constitutional right to induct this measure in the Senate; I do not pretend that; but I mean to present it in the Senate, and then I am going to address the gentlemen on the other side who, I say, voted for such a measure yester. day to vote for this to-day in order to be consist ent." That, I say, is the argument he addresses to them; not that he supports it on that ground. 35TH CONG....1ST SESS. A word now as to the question of order. If any point which is raised is a point which should govern a man's vote on the passage of a bill, that cannot be a question of mere order. If it enters into the merits of a bill, and determines a man's vote on the bill, it is not a matter of order. I think that is a criterion which will settle any question of this kind. If a point which is presented relates to and must affect the merits of a bill, it is something more than a question of order; but, if it is of a character which would not affect the passage of the bill in the view of the voter, then it may indeed be a question of order. Now, how is it in this case? Here is a revenue bill-for this amendment is substantially the same thing as a billundisguisedly presented in the Senate. The point is, can any Senator rise in his place, and say to the Chair, "I object to that as out of order?" Try that question by the test which I have just suggested: would that determine my vote on the merits of the bill? I think it would not. If the bill was just such a revenue bill as I was satisfied was a good one upon its merits, why should I refuse to vote for it? It might indeed be a question with the other House whether they would permit us to originate a revenue bill in this way; whether they would consent to it. But if they took no exception, its origination would not affect the merits of the bill; for I agree entirely with the Senator from Connecticut that if the bill passed both Houses, it would be a valid lawthough at the same time I know full well that there has been some such decision as that suggested by the Senator from New Hampshire. I know that there has been a decision in New York to this effect: the constitution of New York required a two-thirds majority of the Legislature to grant a bank charter, and the question arose before their supreme court in relation to the validity of an alleged law of that State which granted a bank charter. The court looked behind the mere passage of the bill to ascertain whether it had received the constitutional majority, and ascertaining that it had not received two thirds, the supreme court decided that it was not a law. But what of that? There was an objection which entered into the very merit of the thing: the bill never had the constitutional majority; here the only question is as to the inception of the paper. In point of fact that bill never passed into a law; it never passed the House by a constitutional majority. But in this instance, would the mere fact of the inception of a bill in one House or the other, nullify its legal effect if it had been passed with the consent of both Houses by the proper constitutional majority? Certainly not at all; therefore it is not a matter which would enter properly, as I think, into the vote of a man on the merits of the bill; and hence, in my estimation, it is a proper question of order, and it is in the province of the Chair to decide it as a question of order, or to submit it to the Senate. Mr. WADE. To me this question seems very plain; and I have wondered that it led to so much discussion. When I came into the Senate, like every other Senator, I took an oath that I would maintain the Constitution of the United States. Whenever I think a proposition in any form, or in any stage of any proceeding, is palpably unconstitutional, to me it is void; I cannot make use of it for any purpose, not even to defeat a bill to which I am opposed. Whenever I think any proposition is unconstitutional, my course of action is," hands off;" but another gentleman may think that is constitutional which to me appears to be unconstitutional; and so every man must judge for himself. The proposition before the Senate is, to my mind, so palpably unconstitutional that I cannot give force or effect to it in any form whatever. The Senate has no jurisdiction over the subjectmatter; we can do nothing with it. That is my judgment. I understand the Constitution to prohibit us from starting such a measure. The Constitution says that bills of this kind shall originate in the House of Representatives. Then how can we originate them here? Plain as the question appears to me, however, it seems that there are other minds to which it appears differently. I can have no difficulty about the point of order. I dont think you can sink a constitutional question into a mere question of order. I do not be Internal Improvements-Mr. Simmons. lieve it is in the nature of it to be submitted to the Presiding Officer as a question of order; but it should enter as an element into the proceeding before the body, for each member to judge of according to his own views. I do not care how it is presented to me. If it is presented as a question of order, I will say it is out of order, because it is unconstitutional and can have no effect. If I were asked whether an unconstitutional thing was in order, I would say no; it has no business here; it can have no effect; without violating my oath I cannot entertain it at all. I do not care at what stage of the proceedings you face me with an unconstitutional proposition; if I think it unconstitutional I adjudge it void and go against it in any stage, whether you make it a question of order or leave it as an element in any proceeding, or bill, or resolution. This amendment is presented by those who manifestly wish to defeat the bill. I hope there will be no more discussion over it. I hardly ever say anything on such questions, and probably I ought not to have said what I have on this occasion. I trust the friends of the bill will have no difficulty in voting against this proposition, whether it be presented as a question of order, or whether suffered to come to a vote on its merits or demerits. Mr. CLINGMAN. I do not wish to be troublesome to the Senate, but I wish to say that in putting my question to the Senator from Vermont, I had no purpose whatever to embarrass him, or to throw him off his guard, but a bona fide purpose to see if he could show any distinction in principle between this proposition and the one which I understood him to be advocating; but he informs me that he did not vote for it yesterday. From the course of his remarks to-day defending it, I supposed he had voted for it, but I learn that he left the Senate Chamber before the vote was taken, and, therefore, did not vote at all. If I understand him now, he says there is no law or usage to justify foreign valuation. Mr. COLLAMER. I did not say usage. Mr. CLINGMAN. Well, no law. I may have misunderstood the gentleman. Then, if there be no law, I confess I am at a loss to see why the Senator from Rhode Island should have introduced a proposition to change the law. I understand that it was a proposition materially to amend the exist ing laws. Mr. SIMMONS. I stated, when I introduced it, that it was in strict conformity with the principles of the present law, and every law that had existed on the subject. Mr. CLINGMAN. Then I must remind the gentleman of what occurred in 1833. I do not know how far back this foreign valuation has been adopted; but I remember very well, at least I read of it and I presume the gentleman's recollection, as he was perhaps, an actor at that time, will bear me out-when Mr. Clay, in 1833, introduced, and got through the system by which ad valorem took the place of specific duties, it was provided that at the end of nine years, during which period the duties were being gradually reduced, they should come down to twenty per cent. and the home valuation. Mr. Calhoun, advocating the bill, declared that he would vote for it, but that he believed, when the time came, the home valuation would be impracticable. I ask the gentleman from Rhode Island whether that bill of 1833 did not provide for a general ad valorem system; and whether it provided for a home valuation until the nine years ran out in 1841? Am I right about that? Mr. SIMMONS. Certainly. While the modification was going on from specific duties to duties strictly ad valorem, how could the home valuation prevail? It could not apply until the change was effected. Mr. CLINGMAN. That bill provided that you should scale the duties regularly down, and make them all ad valorem; and from that time the Senator, I am sure, will remember that in every tariff we have had while there have been specific duties, there have always been ad valorems. I|| understand that while there were ad valorems, as he well knows, in that tariff, it left them upon the foreign valuation, and the tariff of 1842 contained a number of ad valorems. I ask the Senator if that tariff made a provision for home valuation on the ad valorems ? SENATE. Mr. SIMMONS. I will tell you what the provision of the tariff of 1842 is. It is, that where there is any doubt about undervaluation you shall take the duties in the article itself. Mr. CLINGMAN. Yes; where there is a doubt about undervaluation; but that is not meeting my question. Did that bill provide for home valuation on the ad valorems-the tariff of 1842, which I presume he had a share in passing? Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, sir; I voted for it. The provision was that the market value should be ascertained by taking the foreign cost, and adding to it all charges, except insurance, to constitute the value of the article at the place of importation on which the duty should be assessed. Mr. CLINGMAN. Did it include freight? Mr. CLINGMAN. My recollection is the other way; but I have not the act before me. I think it did not include the duty. The gentleman's proposition includes the duty. Mr. SIMMONS. If the gentleman will allow me to speak five minutes, I will dispose of what I want to say. Mr. CLINGMAN. I supposed the gentleman could answer that question, yes or no. Mr. SIMMONS. I have not been in the habit of being catechised across the Chamber. Mr. CLINGMAN. I beg pardon. I asked for information. If the gentleman does not choose to answer my question, of course Mr. SIMMONS. I will answer any question that is put in such a form that it can be answered. Mr. CLINGMAN. Well, I ask whether in levying a duty on the ad valorems in the tariff of 1846, it added the duty as a component part of the value, as in the Senator's proposition, or not? Mr. SIMMONS. I will answer. I say if the Senator had understood my proposition, he would have known that it did not add the duty. I stated in it that the home value should be taken, the market value to include so much of the elements of cost as entered into the value. Does that assume that the duty enters into the value? Suppose the market value of the article should be cheaper in New York than at the place of exportation, would it include the duty then? The Senator takes it for granted that nothing is imported and sold here but what pays every item that is an ele ment of cost. Mr. CLINGMAN. I understand all that; but we can arrive at it in this way: the Senator from Rhode Island says that the duty did not enter into the price; but in estimating the value of iron at New York, for example, they will say, "this bariron is worth so much if you pay the duty; but if I pay the duty, or duty paid, it is worth so much in the market." Now, which of these statements did the gentleman intend by his proposition the other day to arrive at? I understood him to take the market value of the iron, for example, in New York, the duty being paid. Mr. SIMMONS. I did not intend to be drawn into any discussion on this question. I think I understand the purpose of the amendment, and the object of the discussion. It is to embarrass the passage of these measures; and, for one, when I see such a purpose manifested, people may attack me from one side of this Chamber or the other, but I shall keep my seat, if possible. But as the Senator from North Carolina avows a purpose of merely asking questions for information, I will answer him as candidly as I know how to do. There has always been a difficulty in the minds of those who wanted to get rid of paying duties, who wanted to lessen duties, in coming at what is the market value of an article; and one great reason of it is that they generally illustrate by putting a question about some article of merchandise that they do not know anything about, and that the Senate knows nothing about. Generally they put such a question as was put by the Senator from Mississippi: "Suppose rice should be imported into California from China, and no rice of that kind came into New York?". Mr. DAVIS. I did not say "suppose." I said Chinese rice was a large importation into San Francisco. Mr. SIMMONS. I have always found very many of these practical difficulties. Now the 35TH CONG....1ST SESS. Senator from North Carolina says there is a price in New York for iron, so much duty paid, and so much duty not paid. I should like to hear him read a quotation of that kind in any paper he ever saw. You never saw the market value in New York stated in that way, but the price is stated after everything has been paid, whether the article be free or dutiable. Then people may go on and reason, if this is the actual price, and the duty on it by law is so much, the price would be so much less if there was no duty. That is a matter of reasoning. There is no difficulty in determining the market price of an article, and nobody could misunderstand it if familiar with the article. The only difficulty, and the only strange thing I see in all this discussion about taking the market price at the principal market of our own country, is that people seem to think they can tell a great deal better what a thing is worth in a country they know nothing about, and about the currency of which they know nothing, and that they can never get at any instrument by which they can tell the price in their own country, and in their own coin. That has been argued here at great length. Mr. CLINGMAN. The Senator from Rhode Island has substantially answered my question. He now says his proposition was to take the iron at the selling price in New York. That includes, of course, whatever addition may be made to its value by the duty, which may be much or little. He asks if ever I knew the price stated with reference to duty paid or not paid. I can tell the Senator that railroad companies of my State have imported iron, and sometimes buy it at a certain price, paying the duty themselves, or they pay a larger price, and the person from whom they buy it pays the duty. My object was to arrive at that result. He admits that his proposition was to take bar-iron, for example, at its selling price in New York. That obviously, as every Senator knows, will be affected by the duty. Internal Improvements-Mr. Pugh. I beg the Senate's pardon for having taken so The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is: The amendment was decided not to be in order. Mr. POLK. I wish to take out of the amendment offered by the Senator from Ohio that part of it which provides an appropriation for completing the St. Clair flats. Mr. STUART. It is rather premature to propose that now. Mr. POLK. I do not wish to offer it now, but I desire to indicate my intention to propose that amendment, because I cannot vote for anything in this proposition except the improvement of the St. Clair flats. Mr. BIGLER. I understand the question to be on the amendment offered by the Senator from Ohio. Of course, the Senator from Missouri can move an amendment to that if he chooses. If he does not do so, I propose to amend the amendment by striking out two items. I first propose to strike out that which is known as Senate bill No. 363, as the bills stand on the Calendar, making appropriations for unforeseen contingencies of lake harbors. The words that I move to strike out are: "And be it further enacted, That there be, and is hereby, appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of $20,000 for unforeseen coutingencies of lake harbors, to be expended under the direction of the Secretary of War." Mr. SEWARD. I hope the amendment will not prevail. It is only a way of defeating the whole proposition. Mr. CLAY. I think it is worth while to have the yeas and nays on this amendment. There are Senators on the other side of the Chamber who generally object to allowing any discretion to the Executive Departments in the expenditure of money. They have preferred sometimes, as I thought, just complaints against a Department for the exercise of some discretion in the expenditure of money. They constantly complain about deficiency bills. Now, the Department which has the supervision of these works, has sent these estimates to us and proposes that we shall give a margin of $20,000 over and above these appropriations, to provide for unforeseen contingencies. I think it is a fair time to test the fidelity of some gentlemen to the principles they profess as governing their action here; and therefore I ask that the yeas and nays be taken. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. PUGH. I wish to ask the Senator from Alabama a single question. I ask him whether, when he reported this bill, he reported it upon an estimate from one of the Departments? Mr. CLAY. I did. They did not furnish any details at all; but in reply to the question which T addressed, by instruction of the Committee of Commerce, they returned me an estimate of the funds demanded for certain works, and at the close of those they say: "For unforeseen contingencies of lake harbors, $20,000.” The Senator says that some article is referred to, that the person referring to it knows nothing about, and the Senate knows nothing about. I do not know a great deal about bar-iron; whether the Senate knows much about it or not, other gentlemen can judge as well as I; but the effect of my question is fully obvious to the Senate, on the Senator's explanation. He takes the selling price of iron in New York, and that is from forty dollars a ton and upwards, and the foreign price at Liverpool is about fifty per cent, lower. Since the tariff of 1846 has been in operation, under the instructions of the Secretary of the Treasury and the usages of the Government the duties are ascertained on the foreign price; and therefore there is no fraud in any importer adopting it. The idea is thrown out that the Senator's proposition was merely a measure to remedy frauds; but there is not one of those who supported it who, if he was importing iron himself, would hesitate to adopt the foreign value, or who would hesitate to tell his constituents that they were practicing no fraud in adopting it. If that be the case, it is idle to be professing to strike at frauds, when the feature struck at is no fraud, but the intention of the law, as at present explained, and as the gentleman admits, substantially the intention of the ad valorem system in 1833, and 1842, for he does not urge that the system which he now proposes was then adopted. My object, therefore, was to show that the very provision for which gentlemen on the other side voted yesterday, would have increased the duty fifty per cent. on some bulky articles. I took iron, and if that be the case, I think it was liable to the very objection now made; it was increasing the duties or taxes. If by any form of language we can increase the taxes, or duties, it is a bill like this of the Senator from Mississippi to raise revenue. I am free to admit that I am opposed to his proposition; I do not think the Senate can originate such a bill; but I think the objection lay with equal force on the other side of the Chamber, and therefore I put the question to the Senator from Vermont with Mr. DAVIS. Before taking the vote, I meregreat respect, to see whether I was in error on ly wish to say that the expression, "the estimate this point, and whether or not the distinction ex- of the Department," conveys to the country at isted. I do not think the Senator from Rhode Isl-large, and frequently to the ears of Senators, a and has been able to show any valid distinction sentiment which is not just. As I understand the in principle between the present proposition and case, the Department has not sent any estimate, the one which received so large a vote yesterday. has not asked for any appropriation; but when Mr. PUGH. That is the item. I think it is safe enough. Mr. IVERSON. I ask whether the amendment of the Senator from Ohio, which proposes to throw all these various improvements together in one bill, is not divisible, and whether we cannot call for a division, and a separate vote on each item? The VICE PRESIDENT. Yes, sir. Mr. IVERSON. Then I call for a division, and ask for the yeas and nays on the first item. The VICE PRESIDENT. The question now is on the amendment of the Senator from Pennsylvania to the amendment of the Senator from Ohio. SENATE. called upon by a committee to state what money is required for a particular work, they send back the estimate made in a bureau as an answer to the committee, in dollars and cents, to the questions which they put-not an estimate from the Department in the sense in which we ordinarily use the term. The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted-yeas 25, nays 27; as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Bigler, Bright, Broderick, Brown, Clay, Clingman, Davis, Fitzpatrick, Hammond, Hayne, Hunter, Iverson, Johnson of Tennessee, Mallory, Mason, Pearce, Polk, Reid, Rice, Slidell, Thompson of Kentucky, Thomson of New Jersey, Toonibs, Wright, and Yulee-25. NAYS-Messrs. Allen, Bell, Chandler, Collamer, Crittenden, Dixon, Durkee, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Hale, Hamlin, Harlan, Houston, Jones, Kennedy, King, Pugh, Sebastian, Seward, Shields, Simmons, Stuart, Trumbull, Wade, and Wilson-27. So the amendment to the amendment was rejected. Mr. BIGLER. I propose to amend the amendment in another point. It is due to myself to say that I voted in committee against reporting the items which I move to strike out. I now more to strike out of this amendment the item known as Senate bill No. 346, making appropriations for the completion of the improvements of the Red river raft. Mr. POLK. I understood the effect of the call by the Senator from Georgia for a separate vote on each of these items as obviating the necessity of such an amendment as that of the Senator from Pennsylvania. Mr. IVERSON. I was very much disposed, a little while ago, to call for that division, for this is exceedingly nauseating medicine to me; and to cram it down a man's throat at a single dose, seems to me rather hard. I prefer to take it in broken doses. I think we had better take one question at a time; but I suppose it is very much like it was when I was a child, and was sick, and my mother was administering medicine to me, she poked the jalap and calomel at me, and I would shudder and revolt; but she would say, "you must take it, my son; the doctor says it is good for you. I presume the doctors on the other side of the House, and especially the great doctor it is good for you;" and therefore, I will withfrom New York say, "you will have to take it; draw my motion to divide, and take it all down at a single gulp. [Laughter.] Mr. PUGH. The Senator from Georgia gave us a very large dose when the Savannah river was up, it will be recollected. (Laughter.] Mr. IVERSON. I deny that I ever gave that, Mr. IVERSON. The appropriation for the Savannah river was made at a time when I was not in Congress. The proposition which I made, was simply to change the direction of the appro priation, and not to appropriate a cent. Mr. PUGH. The Senator from Mississippi, as Secretary of War, decided that it could not be used for that purpose; and it was practically the same thing as appropriating the money over again. The Senator could not have got a cent of it without a reappropriation. Mr. IVERSON. I voted against that very ap propriation in the other House. Mr. SEWARD. The Senator from Georgia will admit that I am very good in taking my own medicine, though administered by southern hands; I vote for the Red river raft. The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. FOSTER in the chair.) The question is on the amendment of the Senator from Pennsylvania to strike out of the amendment of the Senator from Ohio the following words: "And be it further enacted, That there be, and is hereby, appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not other wise appropriated, the sum of $110,000 for completing the improvement in the raft region of Red river, to be expended under the direction of the Secretary of War." Mr. PUGH. This is the only one of the provisions reported by the Committee on Commerce for an improvement within the southern States, and I hope that my friends on the other side, if nothing more to say on the subject of its being a they strike this provision out of the bill, will have sectional appropriation. I have only taken tho items which the committee reported. If I had 35TH CONG....1ST SESS. made my own selection, I would have named several other rivers in the South; but I warn them this is the only one they have in my amendment; and if they choose to strike it out, it is their own affair. Mr. MASON. I have not looked at the proposition, but if the Senator represents it correctly, and there is but one appropriation in it for the whole South, I ask what could be more sectional than it is before striking out this item? Mr. PUGH. I stated to the Senate that I had not offered to introduce any bill for beginning or continuing a work; but the Committee on Commerce have reported to us from the War Department certain estimates for the protection and preservation of works already commenced, and this is the only one they have reported for the South. I wish there were two or three more in the southern States. Mr. TOOMBS. I differ with the Senator from New York. I do not take measures like this any more in the South than in the North. Believing the system to be essentially wrong both in principle and in policy, I would apply the same rule to the Red river as to the northern lakes. It is said that these items are all in accordance with the estimates of the Department, and have been reported by the Committee on Commerce. So far as their being reported is concerned, it was done in obedience to an almost peremptory order of the Senate. A majority of the committee, of which majority I was not one, determined to report them; I would never have reported one of them. You might have taken the bills out of committee so far as I was concerned, but I would never agree to report one of them. This measure is probably about as good as the Chicago improvement, according to the account of the Senator from Illinois, only probably a little worse. I have no idea that the work will ever be finished. They have been drawing out the logs from Red river for the last twenty years. I suppose the improvement will have its incidental advantages to the people of the United States. Perhaps, it will benefit the wool-grower in Vermont, because the people in the Red river region will want woolen clothes. Working in the water and spending $110,000 there, will help the wool of Vermont! That is the idea now; but as for this improvement helping anybody in the region where it is made, that is a delusion. I have paid some attention to it, for it is an old customer; it has been here ever since I have been in Congress. I suppose if you spent a $1,000,000 and got this raft out, you might have good navigation for two or three months of the year, but the first flood that came would bring the logs all back again. It is the same case with these other works. e The truth about the Chicago harbor seems to be that if you run your pier out into the lake three hundred yards this year, you must run it out five hundred next year, and seven hundred the next year, and so on until you run it across the lake. If you are to throw away money for the benefit of particular localities, I want a fair division. If you are going to distribute money in this way, you ought to distribute it more generally over the United States, north as well as south. Nine tenths of the bills which have been reported, I think are for the lakes. The enterprising gentleman from New York, imagines that he is serving his constituents by getting a large amount of money spent in that State. I think he will be able, by the aid of the Senate, to protect Gerrit Smith's wharf property; and no doubt he would vote $800,000 with much more pleasure than $80,000; but I think the people of the North had better look to these schemes. Not one of these bills is for New England unless they suppose they are to be generally benefited by taking money from the public Treasury and spending it somewhere. I do not see any other advantage they have. Internal Improvements-Mr. Crittenden. ures, and therefore making a great many northern Not one of these bills is for the Atlantic coast. It is a singular fact that the engineer department, Where these improvements are to be made, a Mr. PUGH. Not a cent. SENATE. in the pockets of contractors and others, to spend it in localities. I want an opportunity to record my testimony against the Red river improvement. I wish there was a bill for the Arkansas, having a more immediate interest of my own on the banks of that river, that I might vote against it; but I will take the nearest to it-the Red river. I vote against them all, in whole and in detail, singly and together. Of course I would put in a hundred more works, if I could hurt the bill by doing so; but I despair of being able to break down the bill in that way I believe the more money you get into such a bill, the stronger it would be with the great body of the coalition of Black Republicans and what I consider fishy Democrats, who sustain these measures. I may be one of that class of Democrats myself, [laughter,] but I say that is the coalition which has carried these measures for two or three years past. Mr. HOUSTON. From some little knowledge of the Red river, I am inclined to think that all the money you have spent on it for the last twenty years has been thrown away, and the river has been always getting worse. From the time of Shreve, all the efforts that have been made to improve the river have been unavailing; and I am inclined to think the result of spending the $110,000 now proposed to be appropriated for it, will result in the same way. If you want to spend money on the southern waters, I could point out some that would really be benefited by an appropriation; but this is a most inauspicious time to revive the old experiments on Red river. They have died out, been resuscitated, and died out again. There has been a succession of deaths and resurrections of projects to throw away money on Red river. I must confess that I am not in favor of it. I have not had an opportunity of consulting the Senators or Representatives from Louisiana; but this river is a boundary to the State in which I reside and represent, and it is very strange that I should not have gained some information about it. I should be very glad if the bill were laid over for the present-unless there is some urgent reason to the contrary-and that it be allowed to lie on the table until I can look into the matter, and see what amount has been unavailingly expended, and what is necessary to complete it according to the report of the engineers, and who the engineers were, and what plan is to produce the advantage they anticipate. I hope the bill will be suffered to lie over for the present. Mr. ALLEN. As one of the members of the Committee on Commerce, I have to state that $3,500,000, or more, were applied for, for repairs and extensions of works, and the committee considered that an appropriation of that amount could not possibly be made in the present situation of the Treasury. Accordingly, they requested the War Department to inform them what sum would be necessary to keep in repair works already in existence; and the Department sent a communication, on which the committee have acted, and reported bills to the amount of about five hundred thousand dollars. Mr. CRITTENDEN. I have, for many years, voted for appropriations to clear out the Red river; but I am entirely unacquainted with the effects that have been produced by the attempts to remove the raft, and render the river navigable. If any gentleman has any such information, I should like to receive it; for, though I think navigable rivers are very proper subjects for all the improvements we can bestow on them within our reasonable means; yet I am not disposed to vote a single dollar that cannot be usefully applied. I came to the conclusion, some years ago, that it was im Mr. TOOMBS. The Ohio river is quiet this time. They either have stopped mending the works or they are not amendable-they are not even within the statute of jeofails, and I think that will be the case with a great many of your improvements, on which you have spent twenty or thirty million dollars. Where are the monuments to the skill of Congress in improving rivers and harbors? According to the accounts we receive, all these works are in the most dilapidated condition; we are called upon to appropriate for them now, immediately, quickly, instantly, at the heel of the session; and the Senator from New York wants the session prolonged, because if aid is not given now, this moment, the works will go to utter ruin. These are the magnificent monuments to the genius and wisdom of that policy by which you attempt to build up these improvements from the public money. The most lament-practicable to remove this raft; that you might, able account of a set of rickety, broken down, inefficient works the world ever saw, you will find in the reports of the condition of these improvements. Everything is washed away; everything is broken down; and unless you do something instantly the whole thing will be ruined. That is the history of these works. That is the reason of it. Because you have attempted to make ports where nature made none; because you have attempted to improve rivers, when, according to any known plan, it was impossible to improve them; and the only effect has been to put money for a little time, open a way for a boat; but that the next flood would close it up again; and that it would be infinitely cheaper to make a canal, or adopt any other mode of transportation, than to be at the continually recurring expense of opening through the raft a passage for boats. I do not know what has been done, nor do I know what this $110,000 will accomplish; and on that subject I desire information before I vote. Mr. DAVIS. I cannot state the present condition of the work, but I can probably give the Senator from Kentucky some part of the inform |