Page images
PDF
EPUB

33D CONG....2D SESS.

of wisdom. Now, the question is, is it desirable that this company should go on and build a steamer better than any other that has ever been built, or is it proper to stop this line as it is? The British Government has not been sleeping upon this question, but they now have a steamer on the stocks, the Persia, which is not yet completed, which is being built for the purpose of outstripping the Collins line. Will they do it? They have every advantage. They have the opinions of all their engineers and officers as to the defects in the existing vessels. They have every opportunity in modeling a new vessel to excel everything that has yet been built.

Mail Steamer Appropriation Bill-Debate.

I rejoice that a freeman has. the right to turn to that record, and hold to their just responsibility the men who take part in forming it. I look to the record? Where else shall I look? To that evanescent sentiment which is one way to-day and another to-morrow? Shall I look for a true, sound, or correct judgment upon an opinion solemnly formed under the responsibilities of an oath to-day, and to-morrow reversed under the same solemn sanctions? No, sir; I prefer to go to the record. Beautiful speeches are very fine things. When I was a boy I was induced to believe that when a man attempted to speak he might safely rely on the vivid fancies of his imagination, and the beautiful But, Mr. President, the enterprise of this coun- adornments of rhetoric; but age has convinced me try possesses a similar advantage. Shall we deny that one stubborn fact is worth all the sophistry it the opportunity. Will the Government of the which the imagination of man can bring to bear United States reap the benefits, or throw them on a question. In arguing this question I have away? Shall we be placed in the humiliating endeavored to confine myself strictly to the point, position, by refusing a mere matter of justice, of to the facts of history, to the record, and to the having these vessels turned on our own shores figures. If gentlemen do not like this, it is not my and against our own people, in the interest of a fault. The record is here. If it is wrong attack foreign enemy, if we shall ever get into a contest it; if I am wrong in stating the record, attack my with a foreign enemy? Or shall we have the ad- error; but do not attack the great principle of vantage of using them ourselves? Sir, if that turning to the record to ascertain what the opinperiod of time ever does arrive, I apprehend there ions of public men have been. I shall not say it will be as great a change of opinion on the part is the only safe-guard, but I will say it is the of the Senator from South Carolina and the Sen-greatest safe-guard which we have against legislaator from Tennessee as there has been in the opinion of this Congress between the last and the present session. We shall then see, and see with the full force of suffering, what is the advantage or disadvantage of the position in which we may be placed.

Mr. President, I have given a very imperfect statement of the facts of the case, much more imperfect than I should have been glad to make; but at this time in the day, and with the impatience of the Senate, I am far from having a desire to talk either to Senators or to empty benches. I have said enough to justify my own action. I know that I have done but imperfect justice to the subject itself; but I hope, sir, that able hands, those who have examined the subject more carefully, will discuss it, if it is to be further discussed to-night, and that not only Congress, but the country will be enlightened in respect to this great question, for great I believe it to be.

Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. Mr. President, I supposed, from the advertisement made by the Senator from Michigan, when he commenced his remarks, that all the figures and facts which I presented to the Senate were to be asssailed and demolished. I do not, however, feel that he has successfully attacked any main position which I assumed. He commenced by the assertion that Mr. Collins had not taken the initiative in this matter. Then, I ask the Senator to tell me who did take the initiative? I put the question to him: how did Mr. Collins get the contract?

Mr. STUART. I said before that Mr. Collins was requested by the then Postmaster General to make an offer.

Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. Where does the Senator find that? Will he refer me to it?

Mr. STUART. I have the letter of the Postmaster General among the papers before me.

Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. I have no letters; all I have to refer to is the archives of the country. I find upon the record the first evidence of this matter in a proposition made by Mr. Collins himself to carry the mail between New York and Liverpool. I know nothing as to what letters may have passed between Mr. Collins and other men; and I have no right to know anything about them. I have Mr. Collins's proposition dated March 6, 1846, in which he asked Congress to give him a contract on the terms which he stated; and Congress did so.

The honorable Senator says, however, that he does not exactly see the propriety of a review of legislation; he thinks that, to say the least, it is of very doubtful policy. Why, Mr. President, do you keep a record at all? Why do you keep a Journal? Why do you pay thousands and tens of thousands of dollars to those honorable young men to sit there and record the transactions of the Senate? Is it not to make up a record which shall live when we have passed away? I am not surprised that the honorable Senator does not exactly see the policy of it, because records are sometimes dangerous things. I rejoice that there is a record;

tive profligacy. Abolish your records, burn up your Journals, banish your reporters; and legislative licentiousness will run riot in the Halls of the Congress of the United States.

Although the honorable Senator deprecates a reference to the record, he attacked my consistency by reference to the record. That is perfectly legitimate. I have never objected to being called to a strict account for my public conduct. Those who know me know that I never evade it. When I am guilty of committing an error, I think I have sufficient manliness and magnanimity to retract it. I do not complain of the Senator's attacking me by referring to the record, though he opposes the practice of doing so. How did he seek to prove my inconsistency? Why, said he, the Senator from Tennessee-alluding to myself-but the other day, made appeals upon this floor, against the wrongs perpetrated by an officer of this Gov-. ernment in not giving mail facilities to the valley of the Mississippi. What has that to do with this question? Congress passed a plain enactment, and repassed it, but an officer of the Government refused to execute it on the pretext that the price was too high. That is not the question here. The question is not whether it is too high or too low, but whether this is the best contract you can make. If the Collins bid is the lowest and best bid, take it; but if there be a lower and a better bid, take that. That is all we ask for the valley of the Mississippi; but we cannot get it.

Mr. President, the gentlemen on the other side of the question are still harping upon the speed of the Collins vessels, and the Senator from Michigan has told us that is everything. He imputed to me an argument which I never used as to time, because it is known to everybody that the Cunarders were never beaten by any such amount of time as is intimated by the Senator. What is the speed of the Collins line over the Cunarders? There is a difference of opinion about it; but I believe the highest time claimed is about eleven or twelve hours. I said that the proposition of Mr. Vanderbilt was to run up to the Cunard time. I said further, that I felt myself authorized to say, that if speed was deemed so important, Mr. Vanderbilt would contract to carry the mails in the same time that Collins carried them, for the sum of $19,250 a trip, the amount of the original contract of Collins. Then what is the use of talking about this speed, unless you impeach the capacity of Mr. Vanderbilt to perform the service, or his ability to offer good security? If you attack that, there is something in the argument; but he proposes to run up to the Cunard time for $15,000 a trip, and he is willing to run up to the Collins time for $19,250 a trip, so that the argument about time will not avail anything.

Mr. BAYARD. Will the Senator from Tennessee allow me to make a suggestion in reference to that matter?

Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. Yes, sir. Mr. BAYARD. This bill, when it was before the House of Representatives, was very much dis

[ocr errors]

SENATE.

cussed, and I believe very great differences of opinion existed there. Mr. Vanderbilt's offers were before the House. The bill came into the Senate; and then on the table of every Senator here, I believe, was placed a printed proposition, signed by Mr. Vanderbilt, which does not embody any stipulation as to time. The honorable Senator from Tennessee tells us now, nearly at the close of the session, that Mr. Vanderbilt will make the Cunard time for $15,000 a trip, and the Collins time for $19,250 a trip; but what guarantee have we for that? The honorable Senator cannot control him. No such proposition is made by the honorable Senator himself; he does not act as the agent of Mr. Vanderbilt. What guarantee, then, have we, knowing that Vanderbilt has been opposing this bill, that the sole object of this apparent offer of his is not simply to defeat this legisla tion, and then let Congress provide for the service in the best way they can?

Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. I am very happy to answer the Senator from Delaware. I am not the agent of any man. Thank God, I never mean to be. I did not announce that I was the agent of Mr. Vanderbilt, or had charge of his interests; but I announced, and I'did it by authority, because I had it from Mr. Vanderbilt himself, that in making the proposition he endeavored to copy the proposition of Mr. Collins, giving to himself just the contract which Collins got. I was met by the argument that he might take fifteen days to run the trip, and I asked him, "Is that what you mean?" "No," said he, "I mean to run up to the Cunard time; but if Congress wish to run it faster, if they wish to run up to the Collins time, let them add the price between what I have proposed and that originally paid to Collins, and I will run up to the Collins time."

Mr. RUSK. Will the honorable Senator allow me to interrupt him for a moment? I do not see any rivalship between the two.

Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. I do not pretend that there is; others make the issue.

Mr. RUSK. But the honorable Senator said that Mr. Vanderbilt has made the same proposition which Mr. Collins made. Mr. Vanderbilt's proposition has been laid upon our tables; and so far as he has said anything to me about it, the printed proposition is the only one of which I know anything. I desire to inquire if Mr. Vanderbilt has authorized the honorable Senator from Tennessee to say that he will build his ships of a particular size, and under the control and direction of the Navy Department? That is a vast item of expenditure.

Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. That is not the point I am debating. The question made upon me was in regard to time. I hold now, in one hand, Mr. Vanderbilt's proposition, and in the other, Mr. Collins's proposition, and I say they are identically the same as to the question of time. Whether Mr. Vanderbilt will build his vessels under the direction of the Navy Department, I do not know; I have not inquired; I have not sought Mr. Vanderbilt or anybody. I take the propositions as they appear on the record, and I say they are both identical as regards the question of time. Mr. Collins proposed to carry the mails twice a month, and Mr. Vanderbilt proposes to carry them twice a month. I stated further, that Mr. Vanderbilt told me, when I put the question to him," in what time do you propose to run?" that he would run up to the Cunard time for $15,000, and up to the Collins time for $19,250 a trip. do not suppose it is material whether the vessels be built under the direction of the Navy Department or not. According to the argument of the Senator from Michigan and the Senator from Delaware, the question simply is as to time; and I care not whether Mr. Collins, or Mr. Vanderbilt, or an officer of the Navy, shall supervise the construction of the vessels. If time is all you needand that is all you seem to desire-then meet me on that argument.

The honorable Senator from Michigan says that to give notice for the discontinuance of the extra compensation to this line, would be a violation of implied faith. How the Senator arrived at that conclusion is a matter of astonishment to me, because the very law upon which we are now proposing to legislate, provides that Congress may discontinue the extra allowance after the 31st

33D CONG....2D Sess.

of December, 1854, on giving Mr. Collins six months' notice. What implied faith there is I do not know. Certainly it is not in the contract; it does not appear upon the record; and I have no right to suppose that there is any implied obligation not written or communicated to the country. But, sir, the Senator from Michigan says that never give

be so. If that be so, you may just as well close this debate, and take the vote. But by what authority does that honorable Senator make the announcement? How can he know what Congress will or will not do? Are we to be driven from the faithful discharge of our duty, as we understand it, by a declaration that it will never be done? Why, sir, with my convictions of duty, if I knew that I stood solitary and alone upon this floor, with no Senator to vote with me for giving the notice, I should dare to enter my protest. Congress, we are told, will never give the notice, and the Senator has stated reasons why they will not. He has gone further, and stated reasons why they should not. I shall not, at this late hour, undertake to answer that particular branch of his argument. If I had time and strength, I should be happy to do so. Whether they give the notice or not is wholly immaterial to me. I mean that my constituents shall know that I have not stood by silently and seen $33,000 taken out of the Treasury at every trip of these steamers to pay for mail service, when another man was willing to do the same service for half that money. As long as I hold my place here, I shall dare to discharge my duty according to my convictions. I care not for the outside influences which may be brought to bear, nor do I care for that storm which may be arising, nor the assumption of that public sentiment to which the Senator has alluded.

I respect an enlightened public sentiment, but I despise a public sentiment manufactured for unholy purposes, and by unholy means. I am not to be driven by popular feeling one inch further than I think is right. I shall always bow to an enlightened public sentiment, but I know no such sentiment as the Senator speaks of. I feel there is no such public sentiment as he has intimated. I do feel, and I do know that there is a sentiment in this city which is pressing on us. I have felt it in my own person. I do not speak about others; but I know that importunities and entreaties, long and powerful, have been, and are constantly made. For that sort of public sentiment I care not. It has no terrors for me.

But, Mr. President, the Senator has said that, so far from this contract being a losing business, the Government has actually made money by it. How does he attempt to prove that? He has presented a statement of the amount of mails delivered in New York by some one or more trips of one of these vessels, and then he argues that the amount of mail matter which went to Philadelphia, and Boston, and California, might amount to so much, and thus he makes up his conclusions. Anticipating all these things, I'addressed a note, a month or six weeks ago, to the Postmaster General, in which I asked him to furnish me with a statement of all the moneys which had ever been paid to Mr. Collins by the Government, and also to furnish me with a statement of all the moneys which had been received into the Treasury of the United States from these vessels.

Has the Senator any better statement than that? If so, he has some other means of arriving at it than I have. I know nowhere else to go to for such information but the Department here. Its officers are sworn officers of the Government. They keep the books, and if anybody does know the facts, they must know them. Have they certified to a falsehood or not? If they have certified to a falsehood, convict them, and turn them out of office; but, if what they certified be the truth, let the truth be spoken. I have before me a statement from the Post Office Department of the amounts of money paid to the Collins steamers, with the date of each payment, and the whole amount paid. The recapitulation of the whole amount paid to them, under the contract, sums up $2,838,406 57. Three hundred and eighty-five thousand dollars were advanced by act of Congress, and of that sum there has been refunded by ten per centum instalments $154,000, leaving

Mail Steamer Appropriation Bill-Debate.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

a balance chargeable to them on that account of $231,000. Adding this to the amount paid under their contract, we have a total of $3,069,406 57 paid to this line. On the other side, the question is, how much have we received? The total postages brought by the Collins line amount to $1,049,059 85, of which the United States portion is $931,087 14. of I have the letter of the Postmaster General accompanying these statements, and indorsing them. Whether they are true or false I do not know, but they are here. Gentlemen are welcome to take them, and dispose of them as they please. It appears, from these statements, that you have paid out upwards of $3,000,000, and have got back less than $1,000,000. In the face of this startling fact, we are told that this is a profitable investment to the Government; that we have made money by it; and that it ought to be continued. If so, the Postmaster General is either a corrupt or an incompetent man, and he ought to be turned out

of office.

Mr. STUART. I did not say that we had made money out of the transaction, in the way of postages. I simply stated what had been the effect of drawing off a part of the Cunard steamers; and I said that from that time, (froin the facts I had been able to get at,) and I referred particularly to the period from the 27th of December last to the present time, there was being paid into the Treasury from this line, more money than was being paid out under the contract. Nor, sir, did I say that the Postmaster General was corrupt, or his statements false. I said he did not give us, in his estimate, the amount received from the Boston, Philadelphia, and California mails, and only stated those of New York. I said that in the instances where he did give the California mails, he treated them as closed mails under the contract with Great Britain, whereas they should not be treated as closed mails at all.

Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. I did not charge the Senator with having imputed to the Postmaster General corruption, and I did not expect him to charge that officer with it; but I did say that his statement was either true or false; and if false, I charged the Postmaster General with corruption. If it be false, he is either corrupt or incompetent. What does he say? The paper is headed: "Statement showing the total amount of postages received on mails conveyed by the Collins line of steamers from the 27th day of April, 1850, to June 30, 1854, also the portion thereof belonging to the United States." The total is $1,049,059 85, of which the United States portion is $931,087 14. Then we have received into the Treasury less than $1,000,000, though we have paid out upwards of $3,000,000. That is what I said.

The honorable Senator from Michigan said the question is not whether Congress will give the notice or not; that, he says, they will never do; but whether we shall surrender all the power and control now, and at all times, until the end of the contract, to close it; whether we shall surrender ourselves at the footstool of Mr. Collins and company for the next five years; or whether Mr. Collins and company shall go on to build another vessel. The question is whether this company shall be required to build another vessel, or whether we shall withdraw the power to conclude the contract. If that is the question, I am prepared now to settle it according to my judgment. Does not the contract of Mr. Collins call for the building of another vessel? Was he not required originally to build five vessels? Has he ever done it? He never has. When the honorable Senator alluded to the naval feature of the question, I think he forgot that one argument which was used at the time of making the contract was that it was strengthening the right arm of the Navy, and yet one fifth of all that virtue is lost. Mr. Collins has been permitted to go free from that day to this without ever being compelled to build the fifth vessel? Why was not he compelled to do it? Did he not know that five vessels were necessary to perform the service? He must have known it. The contract provides that he should build five, and that the fifth vessel might be used by the Government of the United States on paying for it. Still he is suffered to violate his contract, to build only four ships instead of five. The fourth vessel has been lost, and he has now but three, and he refuses to build that vessel unless you will obligate

SENATE.

yourself to continue to him, and his company this exorbitant price for five years to come. He bound himself to build five vessels. He never built more than four. He has now only three.

Mr. STUART. I beg leave to call the attention of the Senator to the fact that the company was relieved from building the fifth vessel.

Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. Where does the Senator find that?

Mr. STUART. I can show it to the gentleman. Mr. MALLORY. Mr. President, I was not aware that this question would come up to-day, and I have not arranged, therefore, in ray mind, as succinctly as I ought to have done, the facts which I deem it necessary to say to the Senate.

Mr. CLAYTON. Senators have been in session, in committees and the Senate, to-day nearly eight hours, and, as a matter of course, they are exhausted. I move, therefore, that the Senate do now adjourn.

Mr. HUNTER. I hope not.

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. PETTIT.) The question is not debatable.

Mr. HUNTER. I call for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered; and being taken, resulted-yeas 13, nays 32; as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Allen, Bell, Butler, Chase, Clayton, Dawson, Fessenden, Morton, Pratt, Sumner, Thompson of Kentucky, Wade, and Wilson-13.

NAYS-Messrs. Adams, Badger, Bayard, Benjamin,

Brainerd, Bright, Brodhead, Brown, Cooper, Dodge of Wisconsin, Douglas, Evans, Fitzpatrick, Geyer, Gillette, Gwin, Hunter, James, Johnson, Jones of Tennessee, Mason, Pettit, Rusk, Seward, Stuart, Thomson of New Jersey, Toombs, Toucey, Walker, Weller, Wells, and Wright-32. So the Senate refused to adjourn.

Mr. MALLORY addressed the Senate in opposition to the provision for the Collins line. His remarks, withheld for revision, will be published hereafter.

Mr.TOUCEY. That the Senate may be assured that it is not my intention to tax their patience, I shall confine myself to the question which is pending before them. The discussion, with regard to the capability of the Collins steamers for warlike purposes, appears to me not to be necessary to dispose of the subject which is under consideration. It comes too late. It would have been a proper subject for consideration when Congress, many years ago, ordered the contract to be entered into, which now exists between this Government and the company. I am not now to believe that the Navy Department and the principal officers of the Government of that day were so entirely ignorant of the matters that they had in charge that they entered into a contract which cannot now be vindicated; which, according to the views of some gentlemen, it would be disreputable to them to suppose they should have engaged in at all. On the contrary, I believe that the policy which was then adopted under the existing circumstances, was a sound public policy, and that the results which have flowed from that policy, in the position which this country now occupies in reference to every Power in the world, fully justify the policy. It is enough for me to say that the contract has been made, and, for one, I shall not consent, so far as my vote is concerned, to violate the public faith by disturbing the con

tract.

The House of Representatives has now passed a bill proposing to make a new contract. I am not willing, at this late day, to enter into a new contract with this company, or any other, upon this policy. I think the policy has already accomplished the results which were designed, and when we get through, fairly, honorably, and consistently with the public faith, with our present engagements, I am opposed, for one, to renewing them in any quarter. I propose, then, to leave the whole subject to the constituted authorities and to private enterprise.

But, sir, what is now proposed? In 1852 we enlarged the compensation of the Collins line, but the enlargement was conditional. We reserved to Congress the power to terminate the contract, on six months' notice, after the lapse of two years. The two years have elapsed, and it is proposed that we make the contract absolute to run through the whole term, and bind the Government to give the present compensation through the whole term of the contract, and give up the right and power which we have to terminate the

33D CONG....2D SESS.

continuance of that part of the compensation which was added in 1852. I am not prepared to do this. It is not what we should do in any transaction of our own. We should be wanting in fidelity to ourselves, now, while acting for the public; we should be wanting, in my judgment, to the public interests, if we were now, without consideration, to abandon our present control over this important public matter. I am opposed to it. What reasons are assigned for this proposition? I have heard none, except that Congress will be importuned to do this, year after year, until it is done. That is to say, we are called upon now to surrender unconditionally, and to give everything that is demanded, because we shall be importuned. Sir, I never, for one, yield to any demand that is made upon me on any consideration of that kind. I think it is no reason why we should yield. I believe it is the bounden duty of Congress to retain this power over this arrangement from a variety of reasons which will readily suggest themselves to the mind of every Senator. If the company disregard the contract, use this power. If they do not come up to the contract which they have entered into according to the utmost good faith, exercise this power which we have reserved, and which we can exercise upon any reason satisfactory to ourselves. I am, therefore, entirely unwilling to make a new contract at this time, and make absolute that portion of the contract, which is now conditional.'

I have another reason. I have looked into the documents and papers which have been presented, and I do not find any statement of the receipts and expenditures of this company during the past year, or since the partial discontinuance of the Cunard line of steamers. I know not what is the state of the receipts as well as the disbursements of this company for the last year; and without that information I cannot exercise a sound judgment whether it be right, politic, or just to make any change in the contract for the benefit of the company.

While, therefore, on the one hand, I would uphold the contract that has been made in good faith to the utmost letter, and in the fair spirit and intention of the contract on the other, I would not give up, nor, by my vote, consent that the Government should give up the control which has been reserved to itself upon this subject.

Mail Steamer Appropriation Bill-Debate.

Congress, so far from concurring in any proposi-
tion of that kind, go to the opposite extreme-that
of giving up the power entirely. Does any prac-
tical man, then, suppose that it is of the least im-
portance now to bring forward a proposition to
terminate the extra allowance? We know that the
House of Representatives will not concur in any
such proposition as that while it is composed of
the present members. I ask, then, again, of what
importance is it to bring forward a proposition of
that kind by those who are friendly to it, unless
there is an advantage in bringing it forward and
having it defeated? Now, sir, I have been accus-
tomeď, myself, in political and all other action—if
there was an object which I wished to accomplish
-to bring forward that object at a time when there
was a chance to succeed, and not when inevitable
defeat was to await it.

||

[ocr errors]

SENATE.

obligation that has ever been imposed by the Government, which comes up here by all sorts of means, except honest ones; by all sorts of means except fair means; which comes before the Legislature without complying with it, to get rid of the first stipulation which was made, and to get increased to a most enormous and shameful extent the amount allowed to them by a contract made with them on the part of this Government. Therefore, sir, I desire to go to some extent into the history of this whole business.

I thoroughly approve of the remarks made by the Senator from Tennessee. His facts are true. They are proved by the record to be true. They are unassailed. Pretexts and excuses, not reasons, are used for the purpose of sustaining this line here, and throwing away millions of public money, and I suppose to save these gentlemen, In opposition to both the extreme opinions and the public time, the expense of defending this which I have stated-on the one side, of termin- ill-gotten contract! The Committee on Finance ating the contract so far as the extra allowance is propose to do what? To strike out the provision concerned, and on the other, of giving up the of the House repealing the power to give the power which we have reserved over this company, notice; and that is the sole question before the and over this contract with the Collins line the Senate. The House propose to take from the Committee on Finance have proposed that course Government of the United States the power to terwhich is between the two extremes. It is simply minate this contract upon six months' notice. Is this: We owe the company money which is em- it to the advantage of the Government to take braced in this bill; we are willing to pay it, with- away that power? Is there a man here who has out a proposition to make a new contract, and given any reason to show that it would be to the without a proposition to terminate any part of the advantage of the Government? It may be to the old contract. Is not that the course which is advantage of the company. Senators talk about required by true and sound policy? Why should the obstruction to the public business! What has we embark in a debate on this subject at this time, obstructed it but the rapacious demands of this when the company has undoubtedly met with a company? What does the Government get by it? great disaster in the loss of one of its vessels? Is Can you answer that question unless you go outthis the time when we should make war on that side of the facts of the case, leave the real quescompany? It is certainly not the time which I tion, and make imaginary reasons as excuses for would select for the purpose. The company is the Government? Is not the retention of this also deriving a great benefit now from the partial power an advantageous provision for the Governdiscontinuance of the Cunard line. There is a ment? Does any Senator deny it to be right that benefit which may, in a degree, compensate for the power to terminate this contract, giving nearly that loss. Why, then, not take that course which $400,000 extra, should be held in the hands of the seems to be dictated by the faith which the Gov-representatives of the people according to the stipuernment owes to the company, and by what we lations of the contract? Is it not advantageous to owe to the public interest, in upholding this line the American Government? No man can deny to a reasonable and proper extent, and appropri- that it is just. No man has pretended to deny it. ·· ating the money that is due to it unconditionally Why shall we surrender it? I will inquire into and without any embarrassment. I confess that the reasons that are given why we should give it is the course which commends itself to my mind, up. Is it an extraordinary power? and seems to have met with the approbation of

was committed by the Senate..

Mr. BAYARD. Allow me to say to the hon-the Committee on Finance, to whom this subject orable Senator that a statement which has been made here shows the receipts and expenditures of the company up to February, 1855.

Mr. TOUCEY. But what is that statement? Does not the honorable Senator from Delaware discover what it is? It embraces the expenditures from the commencement of the company down to the present time in gross. In the early stages of the company, the expenditures may have been very large and the receipts very small; but during the past year, the expenditures may have been comparatively small and the receipts very large. Mr. BAYARD. The expenditures must have been necessarily large last year, because every one knows that there was a great increase in the price of fuel and of labor.

Mr. TOUCEY. It is true the expenditures may have been large; but what I wish to know is the proportion between the expenditures, and receipts at the present time. That is the material consideration, and on that subject I see no light. But, Mr. President, it is said that an enterprising citizen has offered to make a contract with the Government to do this service for much less. Suppose he has; we are not at liberty to enter into any contract with him. Well and safely may he make the offer, because we have no right, consistently with the faith which we have pledged to the owners of the Collins line of steamers, to enter into any contract with him. That consideration, therefore, has no influence upon my mind.

While a portion of the Senate and House of Representatives may be inclined to make a new contract, I am opposed to it. On the other hand, a portion of the members of this body are in favor now of terminating the allowance which was made in 1852. My answer to any proposition of that kind is, that no such proposal comes from the Committee on Finance, or from any committee of this body. In the next place, we know, as far as we can know anything, that the other branch of

These are the views which control me. Without detaining the Senate longer, I simply express the hope that, before we adjourn, the Senate will see fit to concur in the amendment which has been proposed by the committee without embarrassing itself with any other discussion, or any other proposition.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I shall detain the Senate but an instant. I understand the Committee on Finance to have reported in favor of striking out so much of the bill as repeals the privilege to give the notice. That is less satisfactory to me than any proposition that could have been made. I think we ought either to give the notice at once, and be done with the subject, or the privilege of giving the notice should be repealed, and thus get rid of the question. By leaving it in a state of uncertainty we compel the parties to come here each session, and the whole subject is opened to the injury of the public business to a greater amount than is here involved. Although opposed to this increase of pay when it was given, I infinitely prefer the passage of the bill as it came from the House of Representatives to the amendment reported by the Committee on Finance. That is all I deem it nececessary to say.

Mr. TOOMBS. I have but a few words to say on this subject; I believe I should not have said them but for the remarks of the Senator from Illinois. Everything that is done, every obstruction, every interference with the public business is thrown upon the public and for the benefit of this company. I desire, therefore, to some extent to inquire into their claims for such attention as this at the hands of Congress. The Senator says he wants to get rid of the subject; that every session it comes up here causing the public business to suffer more than the value of the money which is involved in it. Who comes up here? Why, this rapacious company which complies with no single

Mr. BAYARD. Will the honorable Senator allow me to say that in this or any other matter, a provision which authorizes Congress to determine and put an end to a contract is unwise and objectionable.

Mr. TOOMBS. I can answer the Senator by showing him that the American people, and his predecessors for fifty years, have differed from him. You have not a contract for the carrying of a horse mail in America that has not the stipulation in it reserving the right to put an end to it. That is the idea of the Senator from Delaware! Sir, I repeat, every contract made by the Post Office Department for a steamboat mail, a horse mail, a coach mail-every contract for carrying the mail by the authority of this Governmenthas this precise stipulation in it.

Mr. BAYARD. The honorable Senator takes

only a part of my language. I spoke of Congress. I said Congress should have no such right under a contract. I say there are evils to flow from it. Mr. TOOMBS. No doubt of it, sir; but I will not surrender a great Government right.

Mr. MASON. If the honorable Senator from Georgia will allow me, I understand the Senator from Delaware to say that it is unwise for Congress to have the power to terminate a contract, although it may be wise that the Executive should have it. The difference is this: Here Congress made a contract, which it ought never to have made, in my opinion, and there is a power reserved to terminate it.

Mr. BAYARD. My meaning is distinct. I think that, from the character of the body, such a discretionary power ought never to have been reserved to Congress. I think it is a dangerous power. I may be mistaken about it; but my impression is that it is a novel case certainly, in which a discretion of that kind remained in Congress to be performed by legislation. The principle of the post office laws is altogether different.

Mr. TOOMBS. If it would be worth while for the Senator, and he would take the trouble to

33D CONG....2D Sess.

look into my course on this question, he would find that no gentleman believed more thoroughly in his doctrine, and pursued that course more earnestly, than I have done. When this contract was made, I urged it, on the floor of the other branch of the Legislature, as a reason for not making it. I have stood by it for ten years, because Congress was an improper party to make the contract. You are giving me an additional reason for it to-day; and when you seek to take away what is a very wise provision for the country, though it may be an unwise one for the contractors, I resist it. I endeavor to confine the Government of the United States to two objectsto protect persons and property-and nothing else. It is not its business to enable any man to make a dollar.

Mail Steamer Appropriation Bill-Debate.*

Mr. STUART. I only wish to remark to the
Senator, that he entirely misapprehends me; but
I do not desire to interrupt his speech.

Mr. TOOMBS. I certainly understood the
Senator to assign it as a reason why we should
repeal this power to give the notice, that it comes
here and interferes with other legislation; that it
becomes so connected with other subjects as to
control our legislation.

Mr. STUART. I did not state that it controlled the legislation of Congress.

Mr. TOOMBS. Well, that it affects it. Give your own language.

Mr. STUART. The Senator may, for the purposes of his argument, draw his inferences. To that I do not object; but he should not say that I stated that

Mr. TOOMBS. I ask the Senator to state his own language, and I will accept it.

Mr. STUART. I stated that the power could not be exercised by Congress arbitrarily; and I gave my reasons for it-that the interests of the country were involved, and, therefore, it could not be done. I stated, also, that its effect upon the legislation of the country was bad, because it soon became a controversy in Congress, and affected every other question of importance.

But these people came here with fair promises. They said, we will carry the mail, twenty trips a year, for $385,000. They came with all sorts of false pretexts, and with all sorts of fallacious arguments to the Senate and House of Representatives. Look through the debates. Here they stand, every one proved to be utterly false from the history of the transaction. They came to us again two years after the contract was signed, and said, we have no money to build these ships; who shall build them? The Government must build them or the whole thing will break down. So we paid them $385,000, as you have heard-$25,000 || a month-until they could build them. That is, they are built with our money. They agreed to build five, but they have never done it to this day. They built four, and lost one of them; and now you are paying them for replacing the lost ship. They are bound to build two. This shows that Congress is an unfit body-to make a contract for other people; I do not say for themselves; but as a political body, I have always believed it to be unfit; and this satisfies me of it. I do not expect that any member of this body, or of the other House, would make a contract that would give away all the beneficial terms of it to the other transacting party and place himself completely in his power; and why should we do it as a legislative body? Why should you take away this control, which, as I have stated, is in every contract which is made in the Post Office Department. If you want a horse mail to be taken through the prairies of the West or the swamps of the South, a part of the contract which is made for it, is that, if you want to put an end to the service, because it is not advantageous to the public, if you want to put on another mail, or if you want to carry it another way, or if somebody will do it cheaper, it may be done. Universally in all the contracts, there is such a stipulation-I do not say who makes it. The Senator from Delaware does not seem to object to the right to make the stipulation; but as to who shall exercise it. The officers of the Government say to the contractors we willatives, say repeal that power. We had the mail terminate it whenever we please, giving you the stipulated damages. What are they? Thirty days pay. That is the law of the United States. You find that stipulation in all the contracts made by the Government, so far as the Post Office Department is concerned.

Then why should this power be taken away in this case? Gentlemen say that Congress is troubled by this subject. The honorable Senator from Michigan [Mr. STUART] attempted to give two reasons for maintaining this contract and for repealing the power which one of the contracting parties reserved, at the time, over the contract. What were they?. Why, first, he says, this Collins line of steamers controls the great body of the legislation of the country. If it does, is it not disgraceful to maintain it for an hour? If that is true, I care not what may be its advantages, though it is to beat the British, though it is to build up a marine. I say abrogate the contract. No matter what may be its advantages, if the reason given by the Senator from Michigan be true, that so transcendent is the power of this company in the Congress of the United States, that whenever it comes up here it pursues a system of log-rolling and affects the great body of the legislation of this country, if it be true, Senators, why not abrogate it down to the bottom and pay damages? I would pay ten millions to-night rather than have the Government of this great country interrupted by so infamous a thing."

Mr. TOOMBS. I accept it as the gentleman explains it. Here then is a contract to carry the mail from New York to Liverpool which affects every question of legislation before the American Congress. The question of whether we shall pay these people $858,000 a year affects the entire legislation of this great Republic! I know of no reason so great, so grand, that ought to be so controlling to every Senator who hears my voice to-night. If the Senator's speculations are correct, tear the contract from your statute-books, pile money upon these creatures until they are gorged-and that would be heavy and a difficult business-give them what they want, but take from the Halls of Congress that question which is controlling the great interests of twenty millions of freemen. Sir, I believe it has affected legislation to some extent; but I hope not to the extent that the Senator from Michigan supposes it has. Why should this be done? Have we not got other contracts? We have one for the carrying of the mail to Chagres. We have one for carrying it from Panama to Oregon. Large sums of money are paid for them. We have the Aspinwall line from Panama to Oregon with precisely the same provision in regard to increased pay. Why does not somebody come here and say tear out of the statute-book the power which we have over that? Why is the Collins line selected, why is the proposition made to repeal that power in regard to it alone? We have,

say, a similar contract with other lines, given for
precisely the same reason, but I have heard no
member of the Senate, or House of Represent-

carried once a month, we wanted it once a fortnight,
and we gave Mr. Aspinwall and those contractors
an increased compensation, with this precise pro-
vision that we could take it off whenever we chose.
Nobody speaks of repealing that; but we are asked
to do it for the Collins line; and why? They
must come here to disturb Congress. Yes, sir,
they have disturbed it. The very suspicion that
they have enabled the malignant and the unworthy
to cast upon reputations, good or bad, is more
damage to this Republic than the value of forty
ships. I make no charge about it, for I know
nothing about it; but I say the very suspicion
which they have cast upon the legislation of this
country, is enough for a man who desires to pre-
serve the Government of the country not only
pure but unsuspected. That honorable gentlemen
have to put their hands into a business from which
they, and their legislation receive a taint-a taint,
sir, whether true or false-is dishonorable. Let
us free ourselves from this. What is easier?
Where are the great questions which demand that
it should not be done? Does it concern the secu-
rity of the Republic? Is the empire in danger if
three ships of the line are discontinued? I would
vote to abrogate these contracts, pay damages,
and take the ships. I would do that, or if that
cannot succeed, I would next do as I did last ses-
sion, vote to give the notice to terminate the extra
allowance of four or five hundred thousand dol-
lars a year. Let them surrender their contract.

SENATE.

I would open a competition with the Post Office Department for the transmission of the mail on that line as on all other routes.

But, the Senator from Michigan says, the great commercial classes are not going to be contented, unless they can get a certain amount of speed. I apprehend that if the commercial classes of the country want speed they ought to pay for it. I think that is sound reason. Sir, has the Senator a right to tax the wheat grower, the corn grower, the industrious classes of Michigan, in order that the merchants of New York, or Charleston, or Savannah, may get their foreign letters quicker? I say that the great difficulty in your legislation, in departing from wise principles, is, that you, through the act of the owners of newspapers, the enterprising, the bad of society, are endeavoring to throw the great burdens of Government upon the honest, the laborious, the unsuspecting; and it is being done every day. Let me go to the Post Office Department to apply for a mail down in my State; perhaps we want an increase of two or three times a week; it will probably cost very little additional; and what chance of success do I stand? The office will look into the business; and I shall be told "it does not pay a stipulated proportion of the expense, and you cannot get it." But here, the Collins line with all the figuring you can make out of it, yields us no proportion of the thousands and hundreds of thousands of dollars which we give for it; and I am told that the commercial classes demand expedition, and, therefore, we must submit to that. I know the idea is thrown out to us-and the Senator from Michigan says -that it will finally get back to us. That has been the argument of all the protected classes, of all the privileged classes, of all the monopolists, of all the knaves that ever plundered honest people. The merchants will tell you that if you make the commerce bear this burden, it will be thrown upon the people. Let it go there. They know it is not true, or they would not come here to seek it. They do not come here for our sakes, but for their own, and we understand this. It is a very true general principle of political economy that business must pay its expenses, but they are continually contriving to make the classes that ought not to pay, pay the expenses of their business. The people of the country will understand this. They will not be satisfied with the mere words of Democracy upon men's lips. They want to see its principles shown in acts. They want equality of rights under this Government; and the farmer of Michigan, as much as the farmer of Iowa, or of Florida, has a right to demand that, if the commercial classes of the country want monopolies or increased advantages, the money shall come out of their own pockets. These pretenses, these sophistries, these lame figures to get rid of official facts cannot satisfy them. Your object is to put upon the industry of the country, the expenses of carrying on a great and profitable commercial business. I am opposed to it.

Sir, how did the Government get along for forty years before it entered into this arrangement? My friend from North Carolina has made a very beautiful speech. I listened to catch its rounded periods; but it contained but one single idea, and that was that he wanted to beat the British. Well, sir, I have had some of those feelings myself. But let us look at this upon principles of political economy. England gets twice as many mails as we do for less money. She gets a weekly mail for less than $800,000 per annum; we pay $850,000 per annum for one every two weeks. Now how is that to be explained?" Men are not going to be humbugged by the reasons which are given for it. I have too great a respect for the human intellect to think so. They say we have great big ships, and the Senator from Delaware says they burn more coal. Why did they build such ships? I want the mail carried. I want the mail facilities; and if you build ships that cost you $20,000 to run them, when the work might have been done as well for $2,000, I certainly shall not be so stupid as to be imposed upon by your getting ships that cost so much more to run them because they burn more coal. But these ships were not built on that basis, I can tell the honorable Senator from Delaware. I know how this work was done. When the company had failed to comply with their contract; when they had built only four steamers

33D CONG....2D SESS.

instead of five, they came here and said let us off from that stipulation, because we have built them so much larger than the contract required. What advantage is that? What we wanted was to have the mail carried; and if a smaller vessel would answer, why build one twice as big? But, sir, the principle seems to have been that if they made mistakes we should pay for them.

That has been the history of the Collins line. All the mistakes, all the follies, all the extravagances Congress has paid for. All the expense comes out of the public Treasury. The contract never has been complied with up to this day. The Senator from Connecticut alluded to the Navy Department. I can tell my friend that I have looked into the reports of your naval officers, and they said that these ships were unfit for war purposes-that the Navy Department made these contracts with ships unfit for the purpose. I do not know whether it is so or not; but this shows you how much reliance is to be placed on your naval officers. The Secretary of the Navy refused to receive the vessels. He did not at first receive them. But Mr. Preston, the Secretary of the Navy under President Taylor, after refusing them, subsequently accepted them. I do not know why it was so. I do, however, know that he was at first denounced in the hireling organs of the Collins company-the New York Herald and other papers. That is the way these things were done. The officers of the Navy declared all along that the vessels were not fit for such purposes. The Secretary of the Navy told you all the time that they did not comply with the contract; that they were not fit for the service; but they have dragooned Secretaries, rode over officers, and somehow subdued Congress.

That is the fact about it; and there it stands. At the last Congress they came here and said we have a great race with the British, and asked for an increase of compensation. They appealed to our patriotism and prejudices against England. Nobody has a stronger prejudice against England

than I have.

Mr. ADAMS. Except General CASS.

Mr. TOOMBS. No, not even General CASS, [laughter;] but I do not think I have ever declared war against her; if I had, I could have got the nation up to it. [Laughter.] Under all circumstances, and at all times, she has been the common robber of the human race, the enemy of all mankind, the execration of the world; but if I wish to show my hostility to her, and if I desire to set to work to break her down, is this the way to do it? If she chooses to bring my letters from Liverpool to New York for twelve and'a half cents, while it costs her a dollar, my policy would be to let her do as much as she could do at it; it would not make me any poorer, and I am sure it would make her much poorer. Yes, sir, these people have appealed to national patriotism. In support of a flagitious scheme, without argument, without public principle, they have appealed to the grand, the sound, the patriotic, the national idea of hostility to England. If England will carry the letters, very well. If it costs us almost a million a year to do it, why should I contend for that business? No sane man would do it-I do not think any Senator would do it-in his private affairs; but they do it here because of public considerations because the vessels will be of use to the Navy! If you want naval ships, get them. I have never withheld my hand from the Navy. I voted for additional ships last year. If you want a hundred naval ships now for the service, I will vote them as fast as I can go for them. But build good ships. Do not build such miserable things as these vessels, and tell us "these are for our ase." They do not suit us. We never expect to get them. I do not wish to go into a controversy with my friends from North Carolina and Texas. I admit that, in the case of a war ship, the faster you can make it the better; but the question has always been, whether or not speed is compatible with the other requisites. I have not looked into it. I care nothing about it; for it does not come up here. If you want ships, buy them, if that is the way to get them. If you want any more, build them or buy them. Hire Mr. Collins's Baval constructor, if he is the best in the United States. If he builds better than anybody else for the same money, you ought to employ him-he is

Mail Steamer Appropriation Bill-Debate.

deserving of employment. That would be a fair
business transaction. But now, under the pre-
tense that you want ships, you are giving him a
job for which the nation pays. Everybody knows
that. It is intended for nothing else than a job.
We cannot deceive the country in this matter.
I do not impugn the opinions of a single member
of the Senate; for I know many gentleman are
controlled by the idea that the vessels will beat the
British, and thereby get national glory. Well, I
think it a small affair; and, at all events, we have
run the race; why run it over again? You have
been two or three years at this; and now we find
that other persons have agreed to do the service
for less.

I concur in the remarks of my friend upon the
Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads,
[Mr. Rusk,] that we are greatly indebted to our
commercial marine, and it being an arm of our
national defense, we ought to do everything that
we can legitimately do, to encourage it. But do
you encourage it by a monopoly? Does my hon-
orable friend from Texas believe that the way to
build up good steamships is to say, by your legis-
lation in giving over $800,000 to one company,
that nobody in the world but that one company
shall run from New York to Liverpool, and
another from New York to Chagres, another to
San Francisco, &c.? Is that the way to produce
a rivalry? Is that the way to build up a commer-
cial marine-a steam marine? That is not the idea
of any portion of this Republic.

My friend from Texas alluded to the navigation laws. Every abuse is the natural ally of every other abuse. He appealed to navigation laws standing on the statute-books (which, I doubt not, will be condemned the moment public opinion can be brought to bear upon them) in order to justify a monopoly in these steamships; but those laws encouraged the skill of different persons. I need not go into a consideration of them now. They encouraged a domestic competition which has invigorated the rivalry and ingenuity of our hardy men, and made us so successful in building up sailing vessels which compete with all the nations of the world; but if Congress had been so unwise as to enact that one ship only should run out of Savannah, another run out of some port in Maine, some other from New York, do you believe that our people would have attained their present proud_preeminence and proud skill in building ships? Everybody knows they would not. Then, I say, bad as the navigation laws are, they have given free competition among Americans; and to that extent the amount of evil which they were likely to inflict upon the Republic was greatly meliorated.

Then, what weight have the rest of the arguments used in support of this contract? None. My friend from Michigan [Mr. STUART] attempts to figure up that these people make about as much money by postages as we pay out. Mr. President, there is one thing very certain about it. I have relied, as matters of fact, upon the statements of the Postmaster General; and I have a right to rely upon them, for the reason that, if he ever got more money than he says he has got, he has never accounted for it. That is all we can know. We take his official account. He receives so much money; that is in the Treasury. My friend from Michigan must find his money and put it into the Treasury, so that we can take it into account. We are expending here two or three millions of dollars. Why? Why, as the Senator says, because the community will not tolerate anything but the most expeditious mail. If society wants speed let society pay for speed; let those who are benefited by meet the expense; let those who receive the benefits support the burdens. That was the basis of the Post Office Department in the better days of the Republic, when we had Republicans, not bastard dissemblers, who call themselves Democrats. In those days, when we had Republicans in this Government, the principle was acted on to make the Post Office Department sustain itself. Now, two or three millions must be voted from the Treasury because the commercial classes want speed! The people along the line of a mail will clamor for increased facilities; of course they will clamor just in proportion as they are seeking injustice, and they must get what they clamor for at the expense of the Treasury!

SENATE.

Then we are brought to the question of whether the Collins line is a good line? Whether the contract is a good contract? Whether the considerations are wise considerations? Do the gentlemen offer a single reason, except that it interferes with the public business for putting this power to give the notice out of the hands of the contracting party -the Government? I have not heard one. The reasons which are given are none at all. But they say it comes here and disturbs the Senate and takes up time. Very well; if gentlemen want claims, all that they have to do, on this principle, is to come here, raise a muss, raise a difficulty, or get up an exciting question, or get some members in this body-it would not take more than two or three-to speak to the end of the session, and give as a reason for any policy, that they are troublesome. They will cease to be troublesome when Congress demands a compliance with their contract. They will cease to be troublesome when Congress punishes them for its violation, as becomes the representatives of a great people. Punish them for it; abolish their contracts; take their ships and pay for them; you have a right to do that. If they are troublesome, and interfere with legislation-if they disturb the other great business of the country, in the name of God value their ships, pay for them, and put them in the Navy or burn them up. You may take them and make a funeral fire of them upon the ocean; you may scatter their ashes to the four winds; you may bring fire from Heaven and consume them for thus disturbing us, and forwarding this miserable legislation; but do something to preserve the purity of legislation.

Who comes here? Who demanded $25,000 for one of the ships? Who came here when they wanted $425,000, and on each occasion, exclaimed, "Help me, Cassius, or I sink?" Congress? Did Congress ever go after them? Have we called upon them to come forward here? Has Congress come forward here with this movement? Gentlemen say that the Collins people did not offer for the contract. I do not know how that is; but about the time we offered to hire somebody to do the job, they came here and asked for it. That is all I know about it, and it is all that is necessary to be known about it. Who comes here now? Is it the interest of the Government? Are not the friends of the enterprise in favor of the application? Is it true, that the public men of the Senate and House of Representatives of this country are coming here for the purpose of relieving the Collins company from an onerous condition? If they are, they are rather the representatatives of Collins than of the United States of America. I say if a member of the Senate or House of Representatives is coming here to get rid of this condition, he is rather a representative of the company than the country. I do not think that all this excitemant, which is spoken of, all this trouble would be given to the Senate and House of Representatives, if Collins & Co. had no interest in this, and did not want it.

The motion of the Committee on Finance is a moderate one. The amendment indicated by the Senator from Tennessee is a just one. I am in favor of it. I shall maintain it; and if I thought I could meet with the concurrence of my fellow members of this body, if I could satisfy them as well as my own mind is satisfied, of the injustice of this, I would submit one myself, to take these ships for the Government service, abolish the contracts, and throw open this service to England, with postal treaties-throw it open to competition, and competition precisely on the same condition as other mail contracts of the United States are made. That would be the best plan to pursue. My friend from Tennessee has shown that you could make money by it, and it is wise and politic that you should do so. They are not the only people who are building ships. The Collins line, so far as speed is concerned, have done well. Some gentlemen say that Mr. Vanderbilt, whom I do not know, has proposed to do the same for less money, but not as fast, and that is the object. We have never contracted that the mail should be carried in eight, or ten, or twelve days; that is not "nominated in the bond." Sometimes it goes better than others; sometimes it goes in twelve days, and sometimes in ten; but I have never understood that any fault was found with the line,

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »