Page images

35th Cong..., 1 st Sess.

Internal Improvements Mr. Thompson.


ing, at all; therefore, whatever my vote might be I look on it as most extraordinary that, in the The Constitution says—I do not quote its words, on the amendment, for it or against it, I shall be present state of the Treasury, when gentlemen | but the idea is in the minds of all of us—that this constrained to vote that it is in order, although I know we have not the money for these improve- | body shall not originate bills to raise revenue. may be opposed to the amendment.

ments, they should press appropriations for them; || Now, a member rises here and proposes a bill 10 Mr. PUGH. It seems to me that the decision and I am still more amazed at gentlemen who

raise revenue. It is not enough to say that the of the Chair is one to which there can be no an- | claim to be connected with the dominant party bill is unconstitutional. That may be said, unswer made, The Senate is the creature of the that they should, in the face of the Senate and doubtedly; but over and above that, it is to be Constitution, and there are as many rules of order of the country and of their constituents, vote to said the Constitution declares that this body shall for this body, in the Constitution, as in our rules- spend five hundred thousand or a million dollars not originate such a bill. Then it is a question of just as many; and they are as completely bind for these objects, without giving the administra- l order. ing-yea, and more so. We can change our rules, || Live Government a dollar to pay it with. It is very Mr. PUGH. I would suggest to the Senator but we cannot change the Constitution. The Con- extraordinary, whatever may be their opinions on that the bill is not unconstitutional; it only begins stitution says that each Senator shall have one internal improvements. I can understand that an unconstitutionally. vote. Suppose I attempt to vote twice on a ques. Opposition who desire to embarrass an Adminis. Mr. FOSTER. I agree that my friend from tion: where is the rule of the Senate to prevent tration, to throw trouble in their way, would raise Ohio is right, because, if we pass such a bill, and me? There is no rule of the Senate; there is a all the objections they could, but I am surprised the House of Representatives pass it and it berule of the Constitution. It is out of order clearly. that others should join them in this. Certainly, comes a law, it is as good a law as was ever The Constitution says that every bill shall be read if these appropriations are to be made, the means made. We cannot go back of the bill as passed, three times in three days. Suppose I attempt to of making them should be furnished.

and show in the Supreme Court that it originated put a bill on its passage after its first reading: that I say the Chair has put the question right:“ Is in the wrong body. We must make the objecis out of order, because the Constitution says it the amendment in order?” In my judgment, it tion in limine, or we cannot make it at all. The shall be read three times. I could name several

House of Representatives, when the bill is sent cases in a few moments. The Constitution has that is involved in the question of order-not to them, may throw it under their lable, because prescribed certain rules of order for us, and we whether it is constitutional. I shall therefore vote, they say the Senate has no business to originate must obey them. We have prescribed others for without hesitation, that it is in order, and then it; but if they pass it, it is as good a law as Con. ourselves; and those, too, we must obey until we vote it in the bill if I can, and then vote against | gress ever made, so far as the origin of the bill is change them. Now, the Constitution says that the whole bill if it be put in.

concerned. Suppose the Constitution had said every bill for raising revenue shall originate with Mr. TRUMBULL. I take it, Mr. President, | the Senate should originate no bill, had created the House of Representatives. A bill which raises that questions of order are to be summarily de- the Senate and House of Representatives as it revenue cannot originate here; it is out of order. cided; and I must confess that I am very much now has, but had given the House of RepresentWe cannot entertain it; it ought to be thrown out surprised that questions as to the constitutionali- atives the sole power to originate all bills: when on its first reading; and the mere fact that the rule ty of measures are to be treated here as questions we, under these circumstances, were in ses. of order is in the Constitucion gives it no less force, of order, and submitted as such to the decision of sion, a member rose in his place and offered a bill certainly, than if it were within our own rules; the Senate. I shall vote with the Senator from on a proper subject of legislation, would it not at and therefore I say that, in my judgment, the Georgia. I have no sort of doubt that this amend once be objectionable upon the ground that, in amendment offered by the honorable Senator from inent is unconstitutional—that is, that we have no this body, we could not originate bills? Would Mississippi is out of order. It violates not a ques- right to pass a bill of the character indicated by not every member say amen to that? Clearly I tion of constitutional law, but a plain rule of this amendment; but it seems to me it is not to think every member would. Well, so far as this order written in the Constitution; and therefore I be raised as a question of order. I shall vote proposition is concerned, the Constitution has insist that the question shall be taken so that we against the amendment without considering its said that very thing; it has said the Senate shall may know in the future what is in order.

merits when we come to vote upon it; and the not originate such a bill as this amendment is. Mr. TOOMBS. Mr. President, the Chair has conclusive reason why I shall vote against it is in that state of things, I say it is clearly a quesput the question in the only way it can possibly

that we have no right to originate such a propo tion of order, because we are forbidden to enterbe raised. The idea that an amendment is out sion; but still I am not for deciding whether a tain or consider the proposition, of order because it is unconstitutional, cannot be bill can be introduced into this body upon con Mr. SEWARD. Will the Senator allow me ? maintained for a moment. That is no test of or stitutional grounds as a question of order. I will I wish to ask whether this question which is subder, for according to my judgment I could have determine that when I come to vote upon the mitted is amendable; whether the question which objected on the same ground that the bill was out measure. As has been very truly remarked, there has been submitted by the Chair to the Senate of order. It never would get in order with me, || is hardly a great question that comes up here can be amended ? for I have no more doubt of the unconstitution | about which somebody does not raise a constitu The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair will ality of the bill, than I have of my own existence. tional point; and are we to go off into a discus-hear any amendment the Senator may offer, and Could I, therefore, get up and say, you shall not sion of order, and have it submitted to the Senate then decide. introduce unconstitutional bills, you shall not in to be determined by a solemn vote whether a bill Mr. SEWARD. Because I suppose what is troduce unconstitutional amendments? It is all is constitutional or not, as a question of order. I covered by it is, whether the proposed amenda mistake. The only question is: is this amend- ll do not think such a question should be submitted ment is constitutional; and if it is, I should like ment within the rules of your body? It is an to the Senate in that form.

to move to amend the question so that the point amendment in the second degree, and therefore The VICEPRESIDENT. The 6th rule of the to be submitted shall be, whether this amendment in order; hence I shall vote that it is in order; there Senate provides that the President may call for is consistent with the Constitution. can be no question about that point on any rule the sense of the Senate on any question of order. The VICE PRESIDENT, The Chair would of ours, I have no doubt, however, that it is un The question is raised whether this amendment not consider that in order. constitutional; and yet I shall vote for it. I have to the amendment is in order or not. The Chair Mr. FOSTER. It seems to me that the quesa perfect right to vote for an unconstitutional believes it to belong to that class of questions tion cannot be more fairly and directly presented amendment to an unconstitutional bill. I will put which it does not become him to decide upon as than in the mode it is proposed to be presented to any rider on it that will kill it. Though it is uns being in or out of order. For whatever reason the Chair. With the suggestions I have made, constitutional, I shall vote that it is in order, and Senators may vote, undoubtedly it may be broadly asking to some extent pardon of the Senate for I will put it on the bill if I can. The business stated that the amendment is or is not in order. || intruding when the question was about to be put, of the Senate would be embarrassed at every stage, That may be predicated of every amendment. I trust we shall have a vote. if a question could be raised as to the unconstitu The question being raised, the Chair presents it Mr. THOMPSON, of Kentucky. It is very tionality of an amendment. I might raise the to the Senate: “Is this amendment in order?" seldom that I have anything to say about points same objection to every bill for internal improve Mr. FOSTER. It seems to me, Mr. President, of order; they are matters in which I take very

that this question can be disposed of in very few little interest, though I was presiding officer of a Mr. WILSON. I understood the Senator from words. The Constitution undoubtedly is of higher | legislative body once, and had very little trouble Georgia to unite with the Senator from Virginia obligation than any rules of order which this body in getting along. The Senator from Mississippi on the point of order in regard to the amendment can make. No doubt we may introduce a bill here submits his amendment. It is objected that it is submitied by the Senator from Rhode Island to which, in the judgment of a portion of the mem out of order, and I understand the Chair proposes the loan bill.

bers,is in contravention of the Constitution,and in to leave it to the sense of the Senate to say whether Mr. TOOMBS. No, sir; I said it was uncon the judgment of another portion is not. It is not, it is in order or out of order. We have rules, stitutional, but not out of order. I could not vote in my judgment, in that state of things, a proper | governing the proceedings of the Senate, and under for any bill with it in, on the constitutional point. test to apply to the bill when it is introduced, to those rules

any proposition is to be received that This, however, is an amendment within the rules make a question of order on the ground that the is pertinent, that is not scandalous, that is not of the Senate; it is an amendment to an amend party making the point of order believes the bill is objectionable to anything in the rules. It is said ment. Whether that amendment is constitutional unconstitutional, and can show it ever so much this amendment is unconstitutional. That takes or unconstitutional is not a question of order, and to be unconstitutional. That is not a question of the whole question for granted. You might just never can be. The Constitution is the ile for order; because members may differ about that, as well say this is unreasonable. You do not my voting for measures; but it is perfectly com and each member will vote upon the bill accord know what may be decided about the Constitupetent and parliamentary for me to make an un ing to his judgment of it, as a constitutional or tion. You are not to take it, as has been suggested, constitutional measure as good as I can, even by an unconstitutional measure, when he comes to in limine; but you are to take it when you come an unconstitutional amendment. I may be wrong vote on it. But where the Constitution itself de.

to the death-yoting upon it. It is not submitin this, but I think I am correct, according to all termines which of the two branches of Congress ted-constitutional or unconstitutional? Why parliamentary law. I intend to vote against the may originate a bill, it presents a different ques. | sir, suppose I make a motion, and a Senator gets whole bill; but I will put the amendment on it tion altogether-one as wide as the poles from the up and says my motion is out of order. I ask because it will be better in that form. question of thc mere unconstitutionality of a bill.

him why?

“Oh,” says he, "your motion is an


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][ocr errors]


[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]

to them; not that he supports it on that ground.

35th Cong....lst Sess.
Internal Improvements-Mr. Collamer.

SENATE. unconstitutional motion." Is that allowable? | acting now under the judgment which the Senate tleman is mistaken in saying that I voted for that That is the cage here.

indicated two days ago. But, sir, no railroad proposition, Mr. FOSTER. Will the Senator pardon me grant has ever been proposed in the Senate on Mr. CLINGMAN. I beg pardon. I thought for interrupting him?

which the argument was not made that by giving the Senator was among those who voted for it. Mr. THOMPSON, of Kentucky. Certainly. away a part of the lands to insure the construc It was generally voted for by his political friends,

Mr. FOSTER. I will take the gentleman's tion of a road, you would increase the value of and I supposed he voted with them. own illustration. If the Constitution has said such the rest, and hasten its sale. Under such argu

Mr. COLLAMER. The gentleman assumes a motion as that should not be made in the body, ments as are sprung on this amendment, such a a great many things in his question. In the first I ask him, then, if he could make it? If the Con- proposition was a bill to raise revenue, and un place, I was saying that we viewed the proposibtitution had said in express terms that such a mo constitutional and out of order. The propositions iion of the Senator from Rhode Island as nothing tion as he proposed to make should not be made which are now pending to improve harbors, it is more nor less than an attempt by some efficient in the Senate, could he make it?

urged, will increase the commerce of the coun. legislation to obtain the revenues and duties for Mr. THOMPSON, of Kentucky. I am not try, and so increase the revenue, the general fund | which the existing laws provide. I deny that the making any motion. I say the objection to this of the country; and, I might just as well say, that foreign valuation is the present law, or ever has amendment is on the ground that it involves the is out of order and unconstitutional, because it is been

since 1799. Our duties have been most genconstitutional proposition, the origination of a a mode of raising revenue, and that belongs to the erally specific; but that our ad valorem duties, 80 revenue measure by a proceeding in this House. House of Representatives. The point is pushed far as they have existed, have been laid on any I say that amounts to nothing, as a question of to the extent of absurdity in the argument, foreign valuation, never was true, and is not true order. You, sir, must be governed by the rules, whatever may be the meriis of the amendment to-day, except so far as we are cheated. The act and, with the highest respect to the body, I think, | itself.

of 1795 provides for assessing the duty at the if I were in your place, I would decide it in or out Mr. COLLAMER. I perceive that gentlemen place of importation. of order, and if they did not like it they might let do that which is not very unfrequent among us Mr. CLINGMAN rose. it alone.

they assume that their view of the amendnient Mr. COLLAMER. I understand what I am Mr. HALE. I did not think, sir, that I should offered by the Senator from Rhode Island to the | about. The gentleman need not trouble me with be led into this debate; but the honorable Sena- | loan bill, is the true one; and they attempt, from any more of his questions. He will get his an. tor from Connecticut has advanced a proposition | their view of it, to apply it as an argument with swer, and get it understandingly too, if he chooses which I think erroneous; and as it may have some relation to this case. Our opinion in regard to to attend to me. Neither shall I be embarrassed influence here, I desire to have it considered. He that amendment was that it did not raise reve by the gentleman's question. I shall not be says that if a bill is originated in this body against I do not wish to be understood as using thrown off my guard in the least by it. the provisions of the Constitution, and is carried the word “raise" in the sense of “increase. The act of 1795 provides for levying the duty to the other House, and enacted there, and be- 1 If a bill were presented which made the duties all on the foreign price of the goods as put on board comes a law, no court can go behind the record, ten per cent., that would still be a revenue bill. the vessel, with the charges of getting them on and say that it was not constitutionally enacted, | Suppose that was the first bill for revenue that board; and it adds “all other costs and charges and adjudge it null. I dissent from that entirely, was ever offered in Congress, would it not be a except insurance and commissions," which, of And I believe that several of the States in this bill raising revenue? Certainly. Then you are course, included the cost of getting them to this Union have decided differently. I know that the to judge of it in the same way at all periods of country. What did that mean? Can any man supreme court of my own State have, within the our history. If it is a bill raising revenue to begin on earth tell me what that means? Take it as it past year, decided that, where the constitution with; it is a bill raising revenue at all stages of reads, and can there be a mistake about it? ltis requires the Houses to keep a journal, and re our history. The Constitution does not require that you take the foreign price, with the addition quires bills to go through certain stages, and it that it shall be a bill increasing revenue; it means of all the costs and charges, until you get the ar. appears, on an inspection of the journal, that a nothing more than a plan for producing money, ticle here as the mere means, the scaffolding, the bill did not go through the stages required by the getting it into the Treasury. T'he amendment of elements, out of which to get the price on which constitution, notwithstanding it has all the forms the Senator from Rhode Island, in our view, was to lay your duty when it arrives here. The duty of law, signed by both presiding officers, and ap- | nothing but carrying the law into effect, and get is not laid on the foreign valuation; it is laid proved by the Governor, it is not a law. The ting the revenue which the law provided. What upon the price abroad, together with the costs honorable Senator from Georgia tells me that if it did increase the amount of revenue? I say and charges, with certain exceptions mentioned. such has been the ruling in the State of Georgia. you cannot make a law to prevent frauds, that What costs and charges? Those of shipping the The Constitution says certain things shall be will not increase the revenue. If it does not, it article and getting it to America. All costs and done, and that each House shall keep a Journal to will not do any good.

charges, except insurance and commissions, are to show what it has done. If it appear by its Jour Mr. CLINGMAN. Allow me to ask the Sen

be put on the foreign price—what for? To get nal that a bill which the Constitution says shall ator a question in regard to a difficulty that oc the price at home. That is the law now. We not originate bere, has originated here, I contend curred to my mind; and it will illustrate this par- find, however, that we are deceived in these ele. that it would be the clearest duty, and within the ticular point. The proposition that he and others ments, we are cheated in these means, and we legitimate province of the Supreme Court, or any voted for was to adopt ihe home valuation. Well, want to carry out the true intention of the law by other court before 'whom the matter might be I find that, taking railroad bar-iron for example, getting at the price in the market, simply by going brought, to pronounce that, although such a bill when it would be worth at Liverpool about twen into the market and ascertaining what the price had all the forms of law, it was nota law. For that ty-six dollars a ton, its selling price in New York is, and thus carry out the law. That it will proreason, I think it is exceedingly important that would be about forty dollars; and, by the last duce more money we kpow. That is the very the Senate should settle do not care whether statement I was able to get, when the selling price reason we want it now; but it is to produce no you call it a constitutional question or a question in New York was sixty-two dollars, it was thirty more than the law intended. That is the char. of order--and should settle rightfully, whether it eight and a fraction at Liverpool

acter of that proposition. is within the legitimate province of this body to Mr. COLLAMER. This is a pretty long ques

Now, sir, with the explanation I have made originate such a measure.

tion. We shall want a surveyor, with a compass about raising revenue, dismissing the idea that Mr. FOSTER, Allow me to ask the Senator, and chain, to run it out.

“raising" means " increasing, 'I say still that before he sits down, how, after a bill has passed Mr. CLINGMAN. I come to the point in this any measure which institutes" means of getting the Senate and House of Representatives, and way: the home valuation is fisty per cent. higher money into the Treasury is a revenue measure. becomes a law and has all the forms which such than the foreign.

This amendment is evidently of that character

. a bill ordinarily has, he would ascertain in the Mr. COLLAMER. I deny the fact.

The mover of it does not disguise that, but he courts, in which House it had originated?

Mr. CLINGMAN. It is on bar-iron, as the uses the argumentum ad hominem on the idea that Mr.'HALE. In the easiest way in the world. gentleman will find if he will take the lists of prices he is going to get us to vote for this measure beo By looking at the Journals. The Constitution for the last ten years.

cause he says we are inconsistent with regard to says we shall keep Journals, and they are kept for

Mr. COLLAMER. That must be owing to another. the very purpose of ascertaining just such facts the freight and duty.

Mr. DAVIS. Allow me to say to the Senator as those.

Mr. CLINGMÁN. Exactly; and the very in all frankness that it is not merely an argumen. Mr. DAVIS. I think Senators on the other amendment the Senator voted for, adopted the lum ad hominem, but I am in earnest; if we are side have pushed the argument greatly beyond New York valuation, and that valuation was going to spend this

money, and have not got it, I the practice, and any reason which exists, either equivalent to raising the duty on bar-iron from want to increase the revenue, and I think the in the Constitution or without it, to carry it to the twenty-four per cent., as it now is to thirty-six proper way to do it is to tax the free list. extent to which they now press it. I am sorry per cent. on ihe foreign valuation. If that was Mr. COLLAMER. The gentleman does not they did not take the same position on the amend-right, what is the objection to this? If you could think I wish to misrepresent him? ment offered by the Senator from Rhode Island raise the duty by that form of language, thirty Mr. DAVIS. Certainly not. to the loan bill. Carried, however, to the extent six per cent., what is the objection to making the Mr. COLLAMER. What I meant by the argu. they now press it, it would be, that any proposi- change now suggested ?

mentum ad hominem, was that the Senator must tion made in the Senate which would increase the MR. COLLAMER. I will say to the gentle- | have reasoned in this way: "I am moving this revenue of the country, would be out of order on man about his question, as the witness said to not because I have a constitutional right to induct the ground that it was unconstitutional. The the lawyer, after a very long one, with a great this measure in the Senate; I do not pretend that men who framed the Constitution lived before many expletives—.- I do not know," said he, | but I mean to present it in the Senate, and there

! that great discovery that the imposition of du “about that, may it please the court; I cannot ties on imports made them cheaper, and they answer that question now, without a surveyor side who', I say, voted for such a measure yester

am going to address the gentlemen on the other meant that no tax bill should originate in the Sen with his compass and chain to run it out and get | day to vote for this to-day in order to be consiste ate. I have no disposition to limit it or to extend at what it is." (Laughter.] I am not proposing eni. it beyond the judgment of the Senate, and I am to make any tariff speech at this time. The gen

That, I say, is the argument he addresses

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

matter; judgmer bibit 08 Etitut on in the H We 001) antars Germ


I dont

von into




[ocr errors]

35TH CONG....1st Sess.

Internal ImprovementsMr. Simmons.


[ocr errors]

A word now as to the question of order. If any lieve it is in the nature of it to be submitted to the Mr. SIMMONS. I will tell you what the propoint which is raised is a point which should gov- Presiding Officer as a question of order; but it vision of the tariff of 1842 is. . It is, that where ern a man's vote on the passage of a bill, that can should enter as an element into the proceeding there is any doubt about undervaluation you shall not be a question of mere order. If it enters into before the body, for each member to judge of ac take the duties in the article itself. the merits of a bill, and determines a man's vote cording to his own views. I do not care how it is Mr. CLINGMAN. Yes; where there is a doubt on the bill, it is not a matter of order. I think presented to me. If it is presented as a question about undervaluation; but ihat is not meeting my that is a criterion which will settle any question of order, I will say it is out of order, because it is question. Did that bill provide for home valuaof this kind. If a point which is presented relates unconstitutional and can have no effect. If I were uon on the ad valorems—ibe tariff of 1842, which to and must affeci the merits of a bill, it is some asked whether an unconstitutional thing was in || I presume he had a share in passing? thing more than a question of order; but, if it is | order, I would say no; it has no business here; Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, sir; I voted for it. The of a character which would not affect the passage it can have no effect; without violating my oath provision was that the market value should be of the bill in the view of the voter, then it may I cannot entertain it at all. I do not care at whai ascertained by taking the foreign cost, and adding indeed be a question of order. Now, how is it in slage of the proceedings you face me with an un. to it all charges, except insurance, to constitute this case? Here is a revenue bill—for this amend constitutional proposition; if I think it unconsti- the value of the article at the place of importation ment is substantially the same thing as a bill tutional I adjudge it void and go against it in any on which the duty should be assessed. undisguisedly presented in the Senate. The point istage, whether you make it a question of order Mr. CLINGMAN. Did it include freight? is, can any Senator rise in his place, and say, or leave it as an element in any proceeding, or bill, Mr. SIMMONS. I think it did. to the Chair, “ I object to that as out of order?" or resolucion.

Mr.CLINGMAN. My recollection is the other Try that question by the test which I have just This amendment is presented by those who way; but I have not the act before me. I think suggested: would that determine my vote on the manifestly wish to defeat the bill. I hope there it did not include the duty. The gentleman's merits of the bill? I think it would not.

will be no more discussion over it. I hardly ever proposition includes the duty. If the bill was just such a revenue bill as I was say anything on such questions, and probably I Mr. SIMMONS. If the gentleman will allow satisfied was a good one upon its merits, why ought not to have said what I have on this occa me to speak five minutes, I will dispose of what should I refuse to vote for it? It might indeed be sion. I trust the friends of the bill will have I want to say: a question with the other House whether they no difficulty in voting against this proposition,

Mr. CLINGMAN. I supposed the gentleman would permit us to originate a revenue bill in this whether it be presented as a question of order, or could answer that question, yes or no. way; whether they would consent to it. But if whether suffered to come to a vote on its merits Mr. SIMMONS. I have not been in the habit they look no exception, its origination would not or demerits.

of being catechised across the Chamber. affece the merits of the bill; for I agree entirely Mr. CLINGMAN. I do not wish to be trouble Mr. CLINGMAN. I beg pardon. I asked for with the Senator from Connecticut that if the bill some to the Senate, but I wish to say that in put- || information. If the gentleman does not choose passed both Houses, it would be a valid law- liting my question to the Senator from Vermont, I to answer my question, of coursethough at the same time I know full well that there had no purpose whatever to embarrass him, or to

Mr. SIMMONS. I will answer any queshas been some such decision as that suggested by throw him off his guard, but a bona fide purpose tion that is put in such a form that it can be anthe Senator from New Hampshire. I know that to see if he could show any distinction in prin- swered. there has been a decision in New York to this ciple between this proposition and the one which Mr. CLINGMAN. Well, I ask whether in effect: the constitution of New York required a I understood him io be advocating; but he informs levying a duty on the ad valorems in the tariff of two-thirds majority of the Legislature to grant a me that he did not vote for it yesterday. From 1846, it added the duty as a component part of bank charter, and ihe question arose before their the course of his remarks to-day defending it, I the value, as in the Senator's proposition, or supreme court in relation to the validity of an supposed he had voted for it, but I learn that he not? alleged law of that State which granted a bank left the Senate Chamber before the vote was taken,

Mr. SIMMONS. I will answer. I say if the charter. The court looked behind the mere pass- | and, therefore, did not vole at all. If I understand Senator had understood my proposition, he would age of the bill to ascertain whether it had received him now, he says there is no law or usage to jus- have known that it did not add the duty. I stated the constitutional majority, and ascertaining that | tify foreign valuation.

in it that the home value should be taken, the it had not received two thirds, the supreme

Mr. COLLAMER. I did not say usage.

market value to include so much of the elements court decided that it was not a law. But what Mr. CLINGMAN. Well, no law. I may have of cost as entered into the value. Does that asof that? There was an objection which entered misunderstood the gentleman. Then, if there be sume that the duty enters into the value? Suppose into the very merit of the thing: the bill never had no law, I confess I am at a loss to see why the Sen the market value of the article should be cheaper the constitutional majority; here the only ques ator from Rhode Island should have introduced a || in New York than at the place of exportation, tion is as to the inception of the paper. In point proposition to change the law. I understand that would it include the duty then? The Senator of fact that bill never passed into a law; it never It was a proposition materially to amend the exist takes it for granted that nothing is imported and passed the House by a constitutional majority. | ing laws.

sold here but what pays every item that is an eleBut in this instance, would the mere fact of the Mr. SIMMONS. I stated, when I introduced ment of cost. inception of a bill in one House or the other, nul- | it, that it was in strict conformity with the prin Mr. CLINGMAN. I understand all that; but lify its legal effect if it had been passed with the ciples of the present law, and every law that had we can arrive at it in this way: the Senator from consent of bo'h Houses by the proper constitu- || existed on the subject.

Rhode Island says that the duty did not enter into tional majority? Certainly not at all; therefore Mr. CLINGMAN. Then I must remind the the price; but in estimating the value of iron at it is not a matier which would enter properly, as gentleman of what occurred in 1833. I do not New York, for example, they will say," this bar I think, into the vote of a man on the merits of know how far back this foreign valuation has been iron is worth so much if you pay the duty; but if the bill; and hence, in my estimation, it is a adopted; but I remember very well, at least I read | ! pay the duty, or duty paid, it is worth so much proper question of order, and it is in the prov of it—and I presume the gentleman's recollection, in the market." Now, which of these statements ince of the Chair to decide it as a question of order, as he was perhaps, an acior at that time, will bear did the gentleman intend by his proposition the or to submit it to the Senate.

me out--when Mr. Clay, in 1833, introduced, and other day to arrive at? I understood him to take Mr. WADE. To me this question seems very li got through the system by which ad valorem took the market value of the iron, for example, in New plain; and I have wondered that it led to so much the place of specific duties, it was provided that York, the duty being paid. discussion. When I came into the Senate, like at the end of nine years, during which period the

Mr. SIMMONS. Tdid not intend to be drawn every other Senator, I took an oath that I would duties were being gradually reduced, they should into any discussion on this question. I think I maintain the Constitution of the United States. come down to twenıy per cent. and the home val- understand the purpose of the amendment, and Whenever I think proposition in any form, or uation. Mr. Calhoun, advocating the bill, declared the object of the discussion. It is to embarrass the in any stage of any proceeding, is palpably un that he would vote for it, but that he believed, l) passage of these measures; and, for one, when I constitutional, to me it is void; I cannot make use when the time came, the home valuation would see such a purpose manifested, people may attack of it for any purpose, not even to defeat a bill to be impracticable. I ask the gentleman from Rhode me from one side of this Chamber or the other, which I am opposed. Whenever I think any Island whether that bill of 1833 did not provide but I shall keep my seat, if possible. But as the proposition is unconstitutional, my course of ac for a general ad valorem system; and whether it || Senator from North Carolina avows a purpose of tion is," hands off ;” but another gentleman may provided for a home valuation until the nine years merely asking questions for information, I will think that is constitutional which to me appears ran out in 1841 ? Am I right about that? answer him as candidly as I know how to do. to be unconstitutional; and so every man must Mr. SIMMONS. Certainly. While the modifi. There has always been a difficulty in the minds judge for himself.

cation was going on from specific duties to duties of those who wanted to get rid of 'paying duties, The proposition before the Senate is, to my strictly ad valorem, how could the home valuation who wanted to lessen duties, in coming at what mind, so palpably unconstitutional that I cannot prevail? It could not apply until the change was is the market value of an article; and one great give force or effect to it in any form whatever. Il effected.

reason of it is that they generally illustrate by The Senate has no jurisdiction over the subject Mr. CLINGMAN. That bill provided that putting a question about some article of merchan. matter; we can do nothing with it. That is my you should scale the duties regularly down, and dise that they do not know anything about, and judgment. I understand the Constitution to pro make them all ad valorem; and from that time the that the Senate knows nothing about. Generally hibit us from starting such a measure. The Con- Senator, I am sure, will remember that in every they put such a question as was put by the Senstitution says that bills of this kind shall originate tariff we have had while there have been specific ator from Mississippi: “ Suppose rice should be in the House of Representatives. Then how can | duties, there have always been ad valorems. il imported into California from China, and no rice we originate them here? Plain as the question understand that while there were ad valorems, as of that kind came into New York?”appears to me, however, it seems that there are he well knows, in that tariff, it left them upon the Mr. DAVIS. I did not say

suppose.” I said other minds to which it appears differently. foreign valuation, and the tariff of 1842 contained Chinese rice was a large importation into San

I can have no difficulty about the point of order. a number of ad valorems. I ask the Senator if that Francisco. I do n t think you can sink a constitutional ques- || tariff made a provision for home valuation on the Mr. SIMMONS. I have always found very tion into a mere question of order. I do not be li ad valorems ?

many of these practical difficulties. Now the

[ocr errors]

The VICIO PRESIDENded mochten we in order that he question being taken by yeas and mays

out are:

[ocr errors]

lave i

35th Cong.... Ist Sess.
Internal Improvements~Mr. Pugh.

SENATE. Senator from North Carolina says there is a price I beg the Senate's pardon for having taken so called upon by a committee to state what money in New York for iron, so much duty paid, and so much time, when I did not intend to embark in is required for a particular work, they send back much duty not paid. I should like io hear him the debate originally.

the estimate made in a burray as an answer to the read a quotation of that kind in any paper he ever The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is:

committee, in dollars and cents, to the questions saw. You never saw the market value in New Is the amendment offered by the Senator from

which they put-not an estimate from the De. York stated in that way, but the price is stated Mississippi in order ?

partment in the sense in which we ordinarily use after everything has been paid, whether the arti The amendment was decided not to be in order.

ihe term. cle be free or dutiable. Then people may go on and reason, if this is the actual price, and the duty curs on the amendment of the Senator from Ohio, resulted-yeas 25, nays 27; as follows: on it by law is so much, the price would be so (Mr. Pugu.]

YEAS–Messrs. Bigler, Bright, Broderick, Brown, Clas, much less if there was no duty. That is a mat

Mr. POLK. I wish to take out of the amend

Clingman, Davis, Fitzpatrick, Hammond, Hayne, Hunter,

Iverson, Johnson of Tennessee, Mallory, Masori, Pearce, ter of reasoning. There is no difficulty in de

ment offered by the Senator from Ohio that part Polk, Reid, Rice, Slidell, Thompson of Kentucky, Thomtermining the market price of an article, and no

of it which provides an appropriation for com son of New Jersey, Toonbe, Wright, and Yulee-25. body could misunderstand it if familiar with the pleting the St. Clair flats.

NAYS-Messrs. Allen, Bell, Chandier, Collamer, Critarticle. The only difficulty, and the only strange Mr. STUART. It is rather premature to pro

tenden, Dixon, Durkee, Fessenden, Foor, Foster, Hlale,

Haralin, Harlan, Houston, Jones, Kennedy, King. Pagh, thing I see in all this discussion about taking the pose that now.

Sebastian, Seward, Shields, Simmons, Stuart, Trumbull

, market price at the principal market of our own Mr. POLK. I do not wish to offer it now, but Wade, and Wilson-27. country, is that people seem to think they can tell I desire to indicate my intention to propose that So the amendment to the amendment was rea great deal better what a thing is worth in a

amendment, because I cannot vote for anything jected. country they know nothing about, and about the

in this proposition except the improvement of the Mr. BIGLER. I propose to amend the amendcurrency of which they know nothing, and that St. Clair flats.

ment in another point. It is due to myself to say they can never get at any instrument by which Mr. BIGLER. I understand the question to that I voted in committee against reporting the they can tell the price in their own country, and be on the amendment offered by the Senator from items which I move to strike out. I now more in their own coin. That has been argued here at Ohio. Of course, the Senator from Missouri can to strike out of this amendment the item known great length.

move an amendment to that if he chooses. If he Mr. CLINGMAN. The Senator from Rhode

as Senate bill No. 346, making appropriations for does not do so, I propose to amend the amend the completion of the improvements of the Red Island has substantially answered my question. ment by striking out iwo items. I first propose river raft. He now says his proposition was to take the iron

to strike out that which is known as Senate bill Mr. POLK, I understood the effect of the call at the selling price in New York. That includes, No. 363, as the bills stand on the Calendar, mak- || by the Senator from Georgia for a separate rote of course, whatever audition may be made to its

ing appropriations for unforeseen contingencies on each of these items as obviating the necessity value by the duty, which may be much or little. of lake harbors. The words that I move to strike || of such an amendment as that of the Senator from He asks if ever I knew the price stated with ref.

Pennsylvania. erence to duty paid or not paid. I can tell the

And be it further enacted, That there be, and is hereby, Mr. IVERSON. I was very much disposed, a Senator that railroad companies of my State have

appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not other little while ago, to call for that division, for this imported iron, and sometimes buy it at a certain wise appropriated, the sum of $20,000 for unforeseen conlingencies oi' lake barbora, io be expended under the direc

is exceedingly nauseating medicine to me; and to price, paying the duty themselves, or they pay a tion of the Secretary of War."

cram it down a man's throat at a single dose, seems larger price, and the person from whom they buy it pays the duty. My object was to arrive at that Mr. SEWARD. I hope the amendment will

to me rather hard. I prefer to take it in broken

doses. I think we had better take one question at result. He admits that his proposition was to not prevail. It is only a way of defeating the take bar-iron, for example, at its selling price in whole proposition.

a time; but I suppose it is very much like it was New York. That obviously, as every Senator Mr. CLAY. I think it is worth while to have

when I was a child, and was sick, and my mother was administering medicine to me, she poked

5 draw knows, will be affected by the duty:

the yeas and nays on this amendment. There The Senator says that some article is referred are Senators on the other side of the Chamber

the jalap and calomel at me, and I would shudto, that the person referring to it knows nothing who generally object to allowing any discretion

der and revolt; but she would say, “ you must to the Executive Departments in the expenditure

take it, my son; the doctor says it is good for about, and the Senate koows nothing about. I do

+ Uni

you. 1 of money. They have preferred sometimes, as not know a great deal about bar-iron; whether the

presurne the doctors on the other side Senate knows much about it or not, other gentle I thought, just complainis against a Department

of the House, and especially the great doctor

: Red men can judge as well as I; but the effect of my for the exercise of some discretion in the expend; it is good for you and therefore, I will with:

from New York say, “ you will have to take it; question is fully obvious to the Senate, on the iture of money. They constantly complain about Senator's explanation. He takes the selling price | deficiency bills. Now, the Department which has

draw my motion to divide, and take it all down at of iron in New York, and that is from forty dol- il the supervision of these works, has sent these

a single gulp. (Laughter.]

body lars a ton and upwards, and the foreign price at estimaies to us and proposes that we shall give a

Mr. PUGH. The Senator from Georgia gare Liverpool is about fifty per cent. lower. Since the margin of $20,000 over and above these appro

us a very large dose when the Savannah river was tariff of 1846 has been in operation, under the in- , priations, to provide for unforeseen contingencies.

up, it will be recollected. (Laughter.]

te been Mr. IVERSON. I deny that I ever gave that,

10.000 structions of the Secretary of the Treasury and I think it is a fair uime to test the fidelity of some the usages of the Government the duties are as gentlemen to the principles they profess as gov.

The Senator does not represent the facts. certained on the foreign price; and therefore there i erning their action here; and therefore I ask ihat

Mr. PUGH. I recollect the Senator's speech;
I do not recollect his vote.

pallbac is no fraud in any importer adopting it. The idea the yeas and nays be taken. is thrown out that the Senator's proposition was

her work The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. IVERSON. The appropriation for the merely a measure to remedy frauds; but there is Mr. PUGH. I wish to ask the Senator from

Savannah river was made at a time when I was not one of those who supported it who, if he was Alabama a single question. I ask him whether, not in Congress. The proposition which I made

, importing iron himself, would hesitate to adopt when he reported this bill, he reported it upon an

was simply to change the direction of the approthe foreign value, or who would hesitate to tell his estimate from one of the Depariments ?

priation, and not to appropriate a cent. constituents that they were practicing no fraud in Mr. CLAY. I did. They did not furnish any

Mr. PUGH. The Senator from Mississippi, adopting it. If that be the case, it is idle to be details at all; but in reply to the question which as Secretary of War, decided that it could not be professing to strike at frauds, when the feature | addressed, by instruction of the Committee of used for that purpose; and it was practically the struck at is no fraud, but the intention of the law, | Cominerce, they returned me an estimate of the

same thing as appropriating the money over again. as at present explained, and as the gentleman funds demanded for certain works, and at the The Senator could not have got a cent of it withadmits, substantially the intention of the al va close of those they say: “ For unforeseen contin

out a reappropriation). lorem system in 1833, and 1842, for he does not gencies of lake hárvors, $20,000.”

Mr. IVERSON. I voted against that very ap. urge that the system which he now proposes was

Mr. PUGH. That is the item. I think it is

propriation in the other House. then adopted. My object, therefore, was to show safe enough.

Mr. SEWARD. The Senator from Georgia that the very provision for which gentlemen un

Mr. IVERSON. I ask whether the amend will admit that I am very good in taking my own the other side voted yesterday, would have in

medicine, though administered by southern hands; methrow all these various improvements together wole Prus BENGOFFICER, (Mr. Foster in creased the duty fifty per cent. on some bulky articles. I took iron, and if that be the case, 1 l in one bill, is not divisible, and whether we canthink it was liable to the very objection now made;

not call for a division, and a separate vote on each the chair.) The question is on the amendment it was increasing the duties or taxes. If by any item?

of the Senator from Pennsylvania to strike out of form of language we can increase the taxes, or


the amendment of the Senator from Ohio the folduties, it is a bill like this of the Senator from Mr. IVERSON. Then I call for a division,

lowing words: Mississippi to raise revenue. I am free to admit and ask for the yeas and nays on the first item. " And be it further enacted, That there be, and is berebr.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The question now that I am opposed to his proposition; I do not

appropriated, out of any inoney in the Treasury not others think the Senate can originate such a bill; but I is on the amendment of the Senator from Penn

wise appropriatrd, the sum of $110,000 for completing the

improvement in the rast region of Red river, to be espended think the objection lay with equal force on the sylvania to the amendment of the Senator from

under the direction of the Secretary of War.”' other side of the Chamber, and therefore I put || Ohio. the question to the Senator from Vermont with Mr. DAVIS. Before taking the vote, I mere

Mr. PUGH. This is the only one of the progreat respect, to see whether I was in error on ly wish to say

that the expression, the estimate for an improvement within the southern States

visions reported by the Committee on Commerce this poini, and whether or not the distinction existed! I do not think the Senator from Rhode Isl- large, and frequently to the ears of Senators, a they strike this provision out

of the bill, wil hera in principle between the present proposition and case,

the Department has not sent any estimate, sectional appropriation. I have only taken they the one which received so large a vote yesterday. II has not asked for any appropriation, but when I items which the committee reported. I I had

[ocr errors]


* now

310n. an oldi

d navi:

4, but

The truth

w you

stred ne

and s

u are


pou are 19egat Pried imas of t1

are san froi Tings

[ocr errors]

her by the

[ocr errors]
[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]

3514 CONG....1st Sess.
Internal Improvements-Mr. Crittenden.

SENATE. made my own selection, I would have named ures, and therefore making a great many northern in the pockets of contractors and others, to spend several other rivers in the South; but I warn them people believe that they are benefited by them. it in localities. this is the only one they bave in my amendment; || In fact they are as injurious to a man in one por I want an opportunity to record my testimony and if they choose to sirike it out, it is their own tion of the United States as in another, unless lie is against the Red river improvement. I wish there affair. located immediately at the spot where the public was a bill for the Arkansas,

a more ini. Mr MASON. I have not looked at the prop money is expended or has wharves to be pro- | mediate interest of my own on the banks of that osition, but if the Senator represents it correctly, tected. There is not a particle of difference between river, that I might voie against it; but I will take and there is but one appropriation in it for the the Massachusetts man and the Georgian in that the nearest to it--the Red river. I vote against whole South, I ask what could be more sectional respect.

them all, in whole and in detail, singly and tothan it is before striking out this item?

Not one of these bills is for the Atlantic coast. gether. Of course I would put in a hundred more Mr. PUGH. I stated to the Senate that I had It is a singular fact that the engineer department, works, if I could hurt the bill by doing so; but I not offered to introduce any bill for beginning or when called upon to state what amounts were despair of being able to break down the bill in that continuing a work; but the Committee on Com necessary to preserve existing works, sent in es way. I believe the more money you get into such merce have reported to us from the War Depart timates nearly altogether for the lakes. I think a bill, the stronger it would be with the great body ment certain estimates for the protection and pres- | the majority of the committee determined to re of the coalition of Black Republicans and what I ervation of works already commenced, and this port these bills because they fell within the prin- | consider fishy Democrats, who sustain these measis the only one they have reported for the South. ciple of preserving existing works. I know that, ures. I may be one of that class of Democrats I wish there were two or three more in the south at the last Congress, the Senate passed above myself, [laughter,) but I say that is the coalition ern States.

sixty bills, all of which failed in the House of which has carried ihese measures for two or three Mr. TOOMBS. I differ with the Senator from Representatives, except five, and I think they years past. New York. I do not take measures like this any were all for continuing existing improvements; Mr.' HOUSTON. From some little knowl. more in the South than in the North. Believing at least that was the policy on which they started. | edge of the Red river, I am inclined to think that the system to be essentially wrong both in prin- l I resisted them then one by one as I came to all the money you have spent on it for the last ciple and in policy, I would apply the same rule them, as I shall do in this case so far as I think twenty years has been thrown away, and the to the Red river as to the norihern lakes. It is it necessary to bring public attention to them. river has been always getting worse. From the said that these items are all in accordance with the This is a mere conspiracy, if I may so term it. It time of Shreve, all the efforts that have been estimates of the Department, and have been re is not by any means sectional, buí it is appealing made to improve the river have been unavailing; ported by the Committee on Commerce. So far to local interests. The gentlemen who live on and I am inclined to think the result of spending as their being reported is concerned, it was done the Ohio and the Mississippi unite with those the $110,000 vow proposed to be appropriated for in obedience to an almost peremptory order of the who live on the lakes as a general rule, and all it, will result in the same way. If you want to Senate. A majority of the commitiee, of which others having rivers in their neighborhood that | spend money on the southern waters, I could majority I was not one, determined to report they want improved.

point out some that would really be benefited by them; I would never have reported one of them. Where these improvements are to be made, a an appropriation; but this is a most inauspicious You might have taken the bills out of committee large amount of public opinion is manufactured time to revive the old experiments on Red river. so far as I was concerned, but I would never agree by those who have wharves to protect and town They hade died out, been resuscitated, and died to report one of them. This measure is probably | lots to sell. A combination is made to get money out again. There has been a succession of deaths about as good as the Chicago improvement, ac out of the Treasury. It is not sectional at all; it and resurrections of projects to throw away cording to the account of the Senator from Uli extends all over the United States. The Arkan- | money on Red river. I must confess that I am nois, only probably a little worse. I have no idea sas river has had appropriations from time to not in favor of it. I have not had an opportunity that the work will ever be finished. They have time; and so has the Red river, and the mouth of of consulting the Senators or Representatives been drawing out the logs from Red river for the the Mississippi. At the last Congress it was pro from Louisiana; but this river is a boundary to last twenty years. I suppose the improvement posed to appropriate $600,000, I think, or it may the State in which I reside and represent, and it will have its incidental advantages to the people have been $900,000, to complete the improvement is very strange that I should not have gained of the United States. Perhaps, it will benefit the at the mouth of the Mississippi; but it was re some information about it. I should be very glad wool-grower in Vermont, because the people in duced to $300,000 for one year, and in that form if the bill were laid over for the present-unless the Red river region will want woolen cloches. passed, over a presidential veto. I have noticed there is some urgent reason to the contrary-and Working in the water and spending $110,000 that the votes of members are affected according that it be allowed to lie on the table until I can there, will help the wool of Vermont! That is the to their locations on the rivers or at the harbors look into the matter, and see what amount has idea now; but as for this improvement helping proposed to be improved. This is the general rule; || been unavailingly expended, and what is necesanybody in the region where it is made, that is a it is not universal, for some few who live there do sary to complete it according to the report of the delusion. I have paid some attention to it, for it not support the system. In New England, for engineers, and who the engineers were, and what is an old customer; it has been here ever since I many years past there have been very few of these plan is to produce the advantage they anticipate. have been in Congress. I suppose if you spent a improvements; many of their harbors are very hope the bill will be suffered to lie over for the $1,000,000 and got this raft out, you mighi have good ones. Take New Hampshire; her port is present. good navigation for two or three months of the a fine one; it needs nothing to be done. Maine Mr. ALLEN. As one of the members of the year, but the first flood that came would bring the has some very good ports, and occasionally they Committee on Commerce, I have to state that logs all back again. It is the same case with these get an appropriation for some of them; and all $3,500,000, or more, were applied for, for repairs other works.

along down the shore they come in for shares. and extensions of works, and the committee conThe truth about the Chicago harbor seems to be This time the western rivers are left out. I do not sidered that an appropriation of that amount could that if you run your pier out into the lake three think the Ohio gets anything now.

not possibly be made in the present situation of hundred yards this year, you must run it out five Mr. PUGH. Not a cent.

the Treasury. Accordingly, they requested the hundred next year, and seven hundred the next Mr. TOOMBS. The Ohio river is quiet this War Department to inform them what sum would year, and so on until you run it across the lake. time. They either have stopped mending the be necessary to keep in repair works already in If you are to throw away money for the benefit works or they are not amendable-they are not existence; and the Department sent a communiof particular localities, I want a fair division. I even within the statute of jeofails, and I think cation, on which the committee have acted, and If you are going to distribute money in this way, that will be the case with a great many of your reported bills to the amount of about five hunyou ought to distribute it more generally over improvements, on which you have spent twenty | dred thousand dollars. ihe United States, north as well as south. Nine or thirty million dollars. 'Where are the monu Mr.CRITTENDEN. I have, for many years, tenths of the bills which have been reported, I ments to the skill of Congress in improving rivers voted for appropriations to clear out the Red river; think are for the lakes. The enterprising gen and harbors ? According to the accounts we re. but I am entirely unacquainted with the effects lleman from New York, imagines that he is ceive, all these works are in the most dilapidated || that have been produced by the attempts to reserving his constituents by getting a large amount condition; we are called upon to appropriate for move the raft, and render the river navigable. If of money spent in that Siate. I think he will be

them now, immediately, quickly, instantly, at the any gentleman has any such information, I should able, by the aid of the Senate, to protect Gerrit heel of the session; and the Senator from New like to receive it; for, though I think navigable Smith's wharf property; and no doubt he would || York wants the session prolonged, because if aid | rivers are very proper subjects for all the improvevote $800,000 with much more pleasure than is not given now, this moment, the works will ments we can bestow on them within our reason$80,000; but I think the people of the North | go to utter ruin. These are the magnificent mon able means; yet I am not disposed to vote a sinhad better look to these schemes. Not one of uments to the genius and wisdom of that policy | gle dollar that cannot be usefully applied. I came these bills is for New England unless they sup- by which you attempt to build up these improve to the conclusion, some years ago, that it was impose they are to be generally benefited by iaking ments from the public money. The most lament- || practicable to remove this raft; that you might, money from the public Treasury and spending it able account of a set of rickety, broken down, for a little time, open a way for a boat; but that somewhere. I do not see any other advantage inefficient works the world ever saw, you will find the next flood would close it up again; and that

in the reports of the condition of these improve- || it would be infinitely cheaper to make a canal, or If you go on the idea of sections, as my friend im

ments. 'Everything is washed away; everything adopt any other mode of iransportation, than to from Ohio seems to do, the injustice is still more is broken down; and unless you do something | be at the continually recurring expense of openapparent; but this is not a sectional question. instantly the whole thing will be ruined. That | ing through the raft a passage for boats. I do This system is as much plunder of the agricul- | is the history of these works. That is the reason not know

what has been done, nor do I know turist and laboring man in New York as in Geor- of it. Because you have attempted to make ports what this $110,000 will accomplish; and on that gia, but the idea is put forth that it is a sectional where nature made none; because you have at subject I desire information before I vote. question, so as to combine the North, I think tempted to improve rivers, when, according to Mr. DAVIS. I cannot state the present consouthern men have done injury to this and other any known plan, it was impossible to improve dition of the work, but I can probably give the questions, by charging them to be northern meas them; and the only effect has been to put money Senator from Kentucky some part of the inform

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »