been disposed of yesterday. The opponents of the bill as it came from the House determined, however, that the discussion should be continued; at least I judge so from the votes which were taken on questions of adjournment; and the debate took such a course that I feel myself compelled to make some remarks in reference to the amendment before the Senate, not because I have any hope of changing the vote of any Senators in reference to this proposition, but because I consider the course of debate has been such as to require, for my own justification, that I should give a brief explanation of the reasons which will govern my vote.

Mr. President, when the system was adopted by Congress, following the example of Great Britain, of providing vessels intended to be auxiliary to the Navy in the event of war, and to be employed during peace in the transportation of the mails, I was not a member of this body, nor for several years after. It was in full operation when I became a member. If, however, I had been here, in accordance with the principles which, on a former occasion, I stated to the Senate, I should have been disinclined to adopt the system except in cases where a rival line existed, which was supported by the money or the Treasury of another Government. In that excepted case only would I have been content that the Government of the United States should connect itself with any system of the kind, and should have preferred leaving it otherwise to individual enterprise. But the system was established.

After. Congress had determined upon that course, at the solicitation of the Government, Mr. Collins and his associates embarked in this enterprise, which was new and untried to them, and which, like all other new and untried enterprises, necessarily involved expenditures and disappointments which human judgment and human sagacity could not foresee. They embarked in it in good faith, and as I shall show before I have done, whatever may be the technicalities of their contract, they have carried it out substantially and fully in good faith, so as to promote the purposes and objects intended to be effected by Congress. Finding that the expenses in the new enterprise were far greater than they anticipated, and that there were additional difficulties to be encountered in the want of means for the construction of machinery adapted to the class of vessels necessary to effect the objects of the Government-(for to have constructed an inferior class of vessels, unequal in speed to the existing line established by the British Government would have been idle) which involved the investment of a capital of nearly $3,000,000, and current monthly expenditures far beyond their calculations, in 1852 they came before Congress, made a statement of the facts, and Congress, after full investigation and discussion, agreed to extend the compensation which they were entitled to receive under the contract. The British Government had done the same thing in reference to their line on two several occasions; and on similar grounds Congress adopted that policy.

I do not mean to go into the details, but to state, as briefly as I can, the course of proceeding in this

matter.

There was attached to the bill which increased the compensation a proviso, leaving it within the discretion of Congress to withdraw the additional compensation at any time, with six months' notice, after the 31st of December, 1854. I did not approve of that proviso then, and subsequent experience has strengthened my convictions of its impolicy. In March, 1853, under representations made of the large expenditures upon all the mail steamer lines, Congress authorized advertisements to be issued by the Postmaster General, with the view to ascertain at what prices the services performed by them respectively could be accomplished. I shall notice that advertisement hereafter; I believe it has not been yet referred to in this debate.

an altered state of facts, with the ceasing of the
necessity upon which the grant was made, was a
fair and rational inference, in my judgment, as to
the future action of Congress under the power of
revocation. But what, in fact, has since ensued?
In 1854, just before the close of the session of
Congress, when there was in the House of Rep-
resentatives a bare quorum present-one hundred
and thirty-two members, the vote being forty- ||
seven to eighty-five, one hundred and two being
absent-although it was at least questionable, and,
in my judgment, certain, that by the true con-
struction of that proviso, the time had not arrived
at which Congress could give the notice in good
faith, the House passed a bill authorizing and re-
quiring the notice to be given by the Postmaster
General; and this without investigation, or suffi-
cient cause.
When that bill came to this body,
there was also a bare quorum here, and the notice
was stricken out by a majority of only two votes.
I draw very different conclusions from these votes
from those of the Senator from Tennessee, [Mr.
JONES.] At the present session, in a full House,
and after a prolonged discussion, the same body
which, with a bare quorum, last year passed by a
large majority a bill requiring the notice to be
given peremptorily before the proper time arrived,
have this year, after a careful investigation, by a
decided, though not a large majority, determined
not only that they would not give the notice, but
experience had shown that it was unwise that this
provision should exist in the contract. Was it
not a just conclusion?

These contractors have embarked in this matter
a very large capital. They are carrying on one
of the most expensive undertakings that could
well be imagined. If they found that, at each ses-
sion of Congress, they were liable to be placed in
a position in which this allowance might be with-
drawn, not upon a judgment founded on informa-
tion afforded to Congress, not upon a consideration
of the commercial interests of the country, but
upon the mere caprice of Congress-was it not
natural that they should wish to get rid of that
provision, especially when, in consequence of the
loss of one vessel, which they were originally
bound by Congress to construct, they were under
the necessity of constructing another in its place
at a cost of $700,000-was it not natural, under
these circumstances, that they should wish to have
some certainty as to their future prospects, some
certainty after their contract had lasted for five
years, and left them still absolute losers under it,
and had but five years more to run, with all the
time, labor, and anxiety which had been involved
in the business, that they would be permitted to
make up for the losses sustained, and secure some
reasonable profit under the contract? It was a
reasonable desire; and I think the judgment of
the House of Representatives in determining to
abandon this proviso, was a natural consequence,
arising from the precipitate action of a mere quo-
rum of the body at the close of the last session of
Congress. This is the view I take of the legisla-
tion here, Mr. President. The danger to these
contractors when they are called upon to construct
another steamer at a cost of $600,000 or $700,000,
is the liability which exists to the exercise of
this discretionary power by Congress, not upon
grounds of investigation, not upon grounds of
justice, but upon grounds, such as I have stated,
either on the interference of other persons who
desire to make a profit, and yet who were unwilling
to incur the risk of loss in the first instance, or on
the mere caprice of some individual members in
bringing the matter before Congress, when there
is no time for investigation and deliberate action.

Under these circumstances it is not to be expected, it would not be rational to suppose, that the contractors would not desire, in their future operations, that they should have some certainty as to the compensation which they were to receive. On the part of the Government, I deem it a wise measure to abandon this power, because, other wise, we shall have this question constantly recommendation of the Committee of Finance, which does not propose to give the notice, but merely to retain the power, there would be but three years of the contract remaining when any notice could be given, and the saving would be too trivial, in my judgment, to justify keeping the

The natural belief on the part of the contractors, and of every other man was, that in the reservation of the power to revoke the additional allow-brought before us. If we were to agree to the ance, Congress would be governed in its exercise, not by caprice, not by the assailing efforts of individuals outside of the body, nor by any other influence than a fair inquiry into the matter. That the additional grant would not be recalled but for just reasons, and after investigation demonstrating NEW SERIES.No. 20.

SENATE.

amount of the allowance in a state of uncertainty, when the law, as it now stands, requires this additional vessel to be built.

What are the objections to this application? for I take it for granted that the contractors have applied to be relieved from this clause in the law of 1852. I do not know that it is so, but I take it for granted; and the House of Representatives have seen fit, after discussion, to agree to that application, and repeal the proviso in the law of 1852. What are the objections, sir? The first is, that it is the invariable practice of the Government, in all its mail contracts, to reserve the right to determine the contract within the term to which it is originally limited by the executive officer. I concede that such is the practice; I concede that such a practice is a wise and proper one; but, like all other rules, it has its exceptions; and I hold that you cannot properly apply such a rule, whether leaving it to the discretion of Congress, which is a most unfit body, as its previous action shows, or to that of an executive officer, to terminate a contract of this kind; for the reason, that the character of the service is one that requires such an amount of capital to be embarked, that you can get no man or set of men to make an original contract, no matter whether for five, or six, or ten years, subject to the right of the Government to reserve such a discretion.

In the original contract with these parties, there is no such provision. You granted it for ten years. Why did you do it? For the very reason which I have stated. Honorable Senators here, within the past few days, when they were desirous of > aiding in the construction of a railroad from the Pacific to the Mississippi, did not hesitate to require that a contract should be entered into for fifteen years, for the payment of not exceeding $300 a mile for the transportation of the mail on that road. I was opposed to that bill on other grounds, which I thought legitimate and right; but there was no hesitation, no difficulty, in providing that the contract, under such circumstances, should be extended for fifteen years, without any proviso of a right to decrease the allowance at the discretion of Congress.

Mr. President, undoubtedly the general practice and rule of the Government, applying to the ordinary transactions of the Post Office Department, in giving a discretion to the Postmaster General, is a wise and reasonable regulation; but when you attempt to apply it to a line of steamships established for particular purposes, one purpose in case of war, and a distinct purpose and use in peace→→→ which involves a capital of millions of dollars, and an enormous annual expenditure-which is to be a rival to the line established by the Government of Great Britain, and supported by the Treasury of Great Britain, you should not expect capitalists to enter into a contract with a condition attached that it shall be in the discretion either of the executive or of the legislative department to terminate the allowance. In making the additional grant, no doubt those who reserved the right had the power to do so. The question is, whether it was wise to do so? I think it better, from our experience, to abandon the right..

There is, at least, connected with this contract one merit to which the parties are entitled. They embarked in a new and untried business, and at the solicitation of the Government; and the moment they did so, the Government of Great Britain established an additional line between New York and Liverpool, and the effect of the establishment of our line led to the postal treaty with Great Britain. Though that postal treaty is unequal and imperfect in many respects, yet it is better than any previous state of affairs. Though its inequal-a ities ought to be remedied, it is not by the abandonment of this line that you can expect to reach that result.

I have stated the character of the enterprise, and the magnitude of the capital involved in this matter, together with the fact that they had to contend with a line backed by the Treasury of Great Britain, which placed it in a very different position from our ordinary contracts for postal service throughout the country, whether by land or by water.

The next objection is, that we are paying for this line an enormous sum, greater than you could establish a line for, and that great profits will be

33D CONG....2D SESS.

made under it. Now, sir, under our discretionary power, beyond all question, if we should find that exorbitant profits are to be made by this line, it would be a perfectly just cause, in my judgment, for repealing the extra allowance; but when you come to investigate the facts, when you have sworn statements, giving the details of every voyage of these steamers down to 1855, giving the expenses of each one, and the disbursements of each one, and showing the difference between the expenditures and the receipts, under the contract, from all sources, you find, when you make the ordinary and necessary allowance for depreciation from use, and for the mere interest upon the capital which is involved, that the owners of this line, after an existence of five years, are positive losers. Although the Senator from Tennessee may say that that has nothing to do with the contract, does it not enter into the equity of the case, as to whether Congress shall withdraw the additional allowance which they made on the ground that these men, having embarked in the contract with good faith, had performed it in good faith? I speak not of the technicalities of the contract; but is it not an answer to the position, that now you ought to withdraw that allowance, when they show you fairly and fully that they are yet under an actual loss; and that, after five years of continual struggle, they have succeeded in establishing a line which not only equals, but excels, the line which was established years before by Great Britain, with all the advantages which it had of being an established line?

citizens, at the invitation of the Government, through one of your Government officers, the Postmaster General, and at his solicitation, embarked in this enterprise, which was a new and untried one. They found it more costly than they expected. In the progress of the contract they applied to you for an additional compensation, and after giving a statement of facts, and after a full investigation, it was granted.

It may be perfectly true, therefore, that, within the terms of the contract originally made, you are only bound to pay a certain sum per trip, and that, under your additional grant, though you are bound to pay $33,000 per trip, you have the power to revoke the additional allowance if you see fit; but unless some malperformance is shown on the part of the contractors, or the fact is proved that they receive exorbitant profits, though it may be in your power, I deny the equity and justice of such an act on the part of the Government of this country. The two reasons which I have specified are, in my judgment, the only two which could justify that act.

their expenditures, over the loss by depreciation and the interest at seven per cent., by the sum of $253,924. They are still losers to that amount, and that, too, after the contract has been going on for five years, three of them being since the additional compensation was made. You have no counter-evidence to this that can possibly meet it. You have the case presented to you precisely on the same grounds on which you granted the additional allowance. These men having entered Gentlemen have not shown me, nor can they into a contract in good faith, and having carried show me, that the reasons which induced the out the objects which you had in view in good Government to make that grant have ceased now. faith, you would not suffer them to be destroyed It is true, as has been stated, that the Cunard line under the operation of the contract, but made is not now running to New York, but it has been them an additional grant, reserving to yourselves called off by the exigency of the war in Europe; this contingent right of revocation without determ- but there is nothing to show us that it will not be ining what your policy would be when the con- reëstablished. Beyond all question the expenses tract should expire. Ought not the same consid- connected with the running of a steamer between erations to induce you, looking at the probable Liverpool and New York, have been increased in profits of the last five years of their contract to the last two years, and no reason has been given abandon that right, and prevent a further agita- for altering now the determination of Congress in tion of the matter, which is injurious to the con-making the grant at that time, which would not tractors, and without benefit to the Government. as fully have existed then. When you have a In connection with this, I may be allowed to further appeal made by your citizens, showing remark on the figures of the honorable Senator that, having embarked in this matter, they are from Tennessee, (Mr. JONES.] He gives us a still, after five years' service, losers by their constatement to the effect, I believe, that something tract, is it asking too much to have this restriction over $7,000,000 will be paid to this company removed, so that they may not be liable to be during the whole time of their contract; and we called here at each successive session of Congress, are told that it is monstrous that such a sum to defend the grant which was made to them in should be paid on a capital of but $3,000,000! 1852, when they succeeded in showing that the He even attempts to underrate the amount of the amount then granted was but a fair compensation capital, as I understood him, by showing that for the services performed? but something over $1,500,000 were subscribed, and that the rest was borrowed. Be it so. But, surely, if it was not subscribed but borrowed, it forms a part of the capital of the enterprise. The vessels, beyond all question, cost nearly $2,900,000. There must have been incidental expenses in the establishment of the line which would run the amount up to $3,000,000; and though that may not all have been subscribed, though some of it may have been borrowed, it forms part of the capital. But waiving all that, whether their capital is $2,000,000 or $3,000,000, it is immaterial; there is really nothing in the argument-though I heard it once before on this floor-that there is any impropriety in a large annual grant, because the amount of the grant appears great in reference to the capital employed. You have not a common ordinary horse conveyance of the mail in the country in reference to which the annual amount which you pay does not probably quadruple the amount of actual capital invested. It is constantly the case. You make the grant founded on the running expenses as well as on the capital; and, therefore, all this parade of figures of the amount which you pay should be weighed with reference, if justly presented, to the expenditures which are necessary to carry on the business, and also to the objects which the Government desires to attain. In this case the mere receipts of postage did not constitute the only object which the Government had in view. I shall not enter into the details on that matter, because I am not suffiSir, these cortractors have been losers hitherto. ciently conversant with them. It is an unquesThe statement which you have here distinctly tioned fact, however, that, in regard to the postal made, and sworn to by one of the clerks, or by service, you have derived the benefit of the estabthe secretary of the company, in which he gives lishment of the postal treaty from the establishthe disbursements of each ship and the receipts ment of this line; and it is another unquestioned from every source, proves that taking the entire fact that the receipts of postages through the line receipts from passengers, and freight, and the have been increasing steadily from its first estabmails, from the commencement of the line antillishment, and that against discriminations on conthe 17th of February, 1855, you have receipts|tinental letters by Great Britain, most unjust and amounting to $7,874,773 34, and disbursements for the mere running expenses, expenses actually incurred and paid, $7,207,291 91, leaving what is called in the statement, a surplus-but it is not a susplus-leaving the difference between the expenditures and receipts in the period of five years which the contract has run, with a capital of $3,000,000 involved, but $667,481 47. This neither includes the loss by depreciation, which of necessity enters into all steaming operations, nor does it include the mere interest on the money. When you come to deduct the losses which have been actually sustained, the loss of the ill-fated Arctic, and the depreciation on the other vessels according to the settled experience of men who have been engaged in the business, and the interest of seven per cent. on the capital, you find that they are still out of pocket, or in other words, they have not received

Though it be perfectly true that, owing to the contingency of the war in Europe, a portion of the line established by Great Britain has been withdrawn, it is but a temporary withdrawal, and there is no evidence, there is no attempt to show that there can be any extraordinary profits derived during the next five years. But if they do make large profits hereafter, according to my sense of justice, they are fairly entitled to them, and will not be extravagantly remunerated for the hazards they have encountered, and the success they have achieved. They embarked in this business at your own solicitation; they have performed their contract, as I say, in good faith; and having done so, I should not hesitate, after having made the grant of additional compensation, and finding they are still losers, to say that it is impossible, during the five years remaining, that they can make any more than a reasonable remuneration for the losses which they have sustained. Does any gentleman suppose that they entered into an operation of this kind with the mere view of making only seven per cent. interest upon their money, while they were hazarding the loss and destruction of their capital? Would that remunerate them for the time, labor, and anxiety of mind, and the chances of entire loss which are involved in such a business? Treat such contractors as some Senators seem disposed to treat them, and you will look in vain, in the future, for any contracts being made with the Government by persons who really can carry them out in good faith.

unequal to us, under the operation of that treaty.
I do not pause now to enter into the facts with
which the Senate is familiar. Under all these cir-
cumstances, there has been an advance and in-
crease of postage year by year. But, further, Mr.
President, when this question was mooted in the
Senate, in 1852, I said, and I still think, that it
was very probable that the postages might not
equal the amount of the disbursement during the
period of the contract. I saw no reason, then,
when I looked to the nationality of the interest
which I conceived was embarked in this line, why
the Government should abandon the contract into
which it induced the parties to enter, although it
did not get an exact remuneration in money, from
the postages, for the amount which it was paying
to the contractors. I think so still.

The facts may be summed up thus. Your own

Again, Mr. President, we are told, as another reason why this power to give notice should be retained, that an offer has been made to run mail steamers on this line by another person (Captain Vanderbilt) for a much less sum than is now paid by the Government to the Collins line. Mr. President, suppose it be so; I think I do no injustice to Captain Vanderbilt in saying that, though he is a very shrewd and a very sagacious man, thoroughly acquainted with steamboat matters, and a very enterprising man, yet his offer, uncertain as it is in many respects, should not be regarded. Sir, the circumstances are these: He comes here, in my judgment, as an interloper. When, five or seven years ago, the Government was willing to enter into a contract which he might have entered into as well as others, when the business was new and untried, and all the difficulties connected with it were to be encountered, he shrunk from it, and left the hazard to others. Yet now, when what was then a new line, running against an established line, has become itself an established line, he steps in, and offers to perform it for a less sum, although the contract which was made by the Government with the other parties who have undergone all the expense and difficulties and hazards of a new enterprise has not expired. He offers to perform this work for a less sum, having the benefit of their knowledge, and of their previous labor in establishing a line successfully, which is the great difficulty in all transactions of this sort. Sir, this proposition meets with no favor at my hands.

But further, Mr. President, I doubt the whole character of the proposition, and I will give the reasons for it. On our tables were laid, after this bill had passed the House, printed propositions from Captain Vanderbilt, which disclose nothing but the fact that he is willing to contract to run a line, without any description of the vessels which he would employ, and without any allegation as to the time which he would make between Liverpool and New York, for $15,000 a trip. That is the proposition? When, in answer to the honorable Senator from Tennessee, [Mr.

33D CONG....2D SESS.

JONES,] I showed that, within the terms of that offer, such a line might well be run, and make a profit, while the Collins line, running at the speed that they do, would experience a loss-that, running inferior vessels, and running at a slower speed, such a line might be kept up for that sum, and yet that the Government would lose by the operation, in postages, an amount quite equal to the difference in cost between the two lines, then the Senator from Tennessee stated that Captain Vanderbilt had assured him that he was willing to make the Collins time, or the Cunard time, I do not know which, for $15,000 a trip. Sir, when a man comes here, and has his agents here for the purpose of acting upon the legislation of Congress, and preventing the passage of a provision intended for the benefit of men who entered into a contract when the business was one of uncertainty, indeed almost an unknown business, and when it was impossible to estimate the expenditures which would have to be incurred, when he occupies that position, lies by, and makes no such proposition while the matter is being investigated before one body, and not until he finds that it is carried, and that his schemes are defeated, does he come forward with his verbal assurance that he would do the same work for a less sum; are we to legislate on such a state of facts, and take the chances of whether he will comply with that assurance or not? Such considerations ought not, in my judgment, to influence the legislation of Congress.

Mail Steamer Appropriation Bill-Debate.

Further, Mr. President, on the 3d March, 1853, under an allegation that the Collins line, and other established lines, were expensive, you authorized the Postmaster General to advertise for proposals for the transportation of the mail between New York and Liverpool, as well as on other lines; and in answer to those proposals where was Captain Vanderbilt? No offer whatever came from him; no proposal was made by him to run a line then for $15,000 a trip. No proposition came from any source to establish a line, except one from the Gal- || way company, which proposed to leave the sum to the discretion of Congress, and that was considered such an entirely vague proposition as to be unworthy of notice. Now, I ask, having gone through with that process before, if this offer was intended as a fair and bona fide offer, in regard to the matter of the expense for equal service, whether it would not have been made when the advertisements were issued, two years ago, and when this extra allowance had been in operation for nearly one year?

Mr. President, I consider this as a mere effort, when I look at the whole circumstances of the case, made by an opponent of this line on personal grounds, or from some other cause, (I do not know what; nor if I knew it would I state it here in the Senate; but it bears on its face indelibly the impression of something of that kind,) to defeat a proposition which he supposes will be beneficial to men and interests to which he is opposed. That certainly would never get my sanction, that would never influence my determination as a legislator.

I concede the ability of Captain Vanderbilt. I believe he is a millionaire, and that he is an enterprising man, and one of great shrewdness and capacity for business; but suppose that this offer were made by him; I ask if a question of dollars and cents would induce the Government of the United States, when it had previously entered into a contract for a period of ten years, with contractors who had embarked in the business at its solicitation, and had invested a large capital on the faith of the contract, who have lost money by the operation so far, to suffer them to be destroyed because there exists a power to withdraw the allowance and permit another party to come in and make profits at a time when-by the energy, the skill, and the enterprise of the previous contractors they were about to be in some measure remunerated? I trust such a consideration will never influence the Senate of the United States.

Mr. President, this matter has been spoken of as if a new contract were proposed to be made by the bill under the consideration of the Senate, which has been sent to us from the House of Representatives. It is not so. The proposition is this: You are asked, under the bill from the House of Representatives, to release one of the terms of the contract which renders uncertain and unsettled the compensation which is given to those

contractors, and which also, if it is released, pro-
vides that they shall build an additional ship,
which will be useful for future purposes, as well
as for the present. That cannot be called a new
contract; it is simply a modification, or an aban-
donment rather, by Congress, of the right of revo-
cation inserted in the original contract. There is no
proposition to extend the time of the original con-
tract; there is no proposition to establish a new line
by these old contractors. They ask you whether,
in justice not only to the country, but to them,
you will not give them a certainty that they shall
receive the compensation, within the terms of the
contract, for the period during which it was given
to them after full investigation? They ask whether
you will not give them a certainty that it shall be
continued during the remaining period of the ori-
ginal contract into which they entered, and on the
condition that they shall construct an additional
vessel? This is no new contract. I view it as a
proposition to carry out, under this bill as it comes
from the House, our original contract with the
parties, in substance, in good faith, and according
to the object of Congress at the time it was made.
I have stated that this contract has been per-
formed in substance and in good faith on the part
of the contractors. Let me endeavor to show
that. Will any gentleman deny that as regards
the postal service, the contract with Collins and
his associates has been fully and faithfully carried
out? You stipulated for no time. You stipulated
for a certain number of vessels; but your most
important stipulation was for the trips to be per-
formed; have they failed in that? No. As to
time, have not these men constructed their vessels
not only regardless of expense to themselves, but
in order to carry the mails in the quickest possible
time, and have they not run all sorts of hazards?
Have they not succeeded in giving a superiority,
in point of time, to your postal service over the
postal service of the established line of Great
Britain, which had existed for years anterior?
They have, therefore, I say, performed their con-
tract in good faith. That they have built one ves-
sel less than was specified is immaterial. They
have performed the contract by making the trips
regularly according to its terms, and making them
in the quickest time, though the contract did not
so require. They have made the best time that
could be made, and they have spared no exertion
or expense to do that.

Take the single item of loss, to show how this
thing operates, which occurred within the last six
months. In running up the Irish channel, one of
their steamers ran into a vessel, and sunk her.
That will cost them $100,000, because the courts
of justice usually decide under general principles,
where a steamer runs into a sailing vessel, the
steamer is responsible for the injury which is done.
That was not an act of carelessness; it was an act
which may frequently occur, because that channel
is densely crowded with vessels. It is also very
liable to fogs; and yet, unless these steamers run
with a certain degree of speed, they would not
carry out the wishes of the commercial people of
this country, in giving speed to the transmission
of the mail. It is in order to accomplish that
object, that they run these hazards, and these
hazards they have to pay for. I recollect, on my
voyage in the Pacific, we nearly came in collision
with another vessel. We were running slowly at.
the time, about eight knots an hour. The fog
was so dense that we could not see ten or twelve
feet ahead, and by a rapid shifting of the helm, we
barely escaped running down a vessel which must
otherwise have been lost, but which, fortunately,
we merely grazed, and passed without injury.
These are matters of frequent occurrence, because
the channel is always crowded; the fogs are inces-
sant at particular periods of the year; but the
people of this country want speed, and, in order
to accomplish that, they must hazard the vessels,
and run the risk of experiencing such losses. I
mention this only as an incident to show that it is
not through negligence that these things occur,
but from a desire, regardless of expense, to carry
out, in good faith, as regards the postal service,
their contract with the Government, not only
making their trips regularly, but making them in
a time not equaled by any other line.

Mr. President, I come now to the question connected with the war steamer clause. These vcs

SENATE.

sels were constructed, as indicated in the policy of the Government, for the purposes of war as well as for the purposes of the postal service in peace, and the Government has the option of taking them at a valuation, It was alleged in 1852 that they were useless for purposes of war. I admitted then what I have some doubts about now-that as between the side-wheel steamer and the propeller, the propeller was the most efficient vessel for purposes of war. I doubt it now. I shall not enter into that vexed question. I shall not venture to controvert the much superior information and knowledge on naval subjects of the honorable Senator from Florida, [Mr. MALLORY;] but there are some matters connected with this that I will allude to in order to show that he is under an error in his allegation as regards the inutility of these vessels for war purposes. I may express it as a general result, firet, that of all the steamers that you have had built under this policy, the Collins line alone have complied substantially with the terms of the contract in building their vessels to suit war purposes. If it be true, according to the view of the honorable Senator from Florida, that a war steamer must be able to engage at the distance of pistol shot, broadside to broadside, then the Saranac is not a war steamer; the Susquehanna is not a war steamer; you have no war steamers in the Navy unless they be the Princeton and the San Jacinto. Where does the honorable Senator obtain his authority? He has disavowed that of Charles Stewart. Now, with all my respect for the honorable Senator, I would rather take the opinion of one of the most distinguished captains of our Navy, who has been fifty years in the service, and is thoroughly acquainted with the arts of seamanship, in regard to the fighting capacity of a vessel, than that of the honorable Senator from Florida.

Mr. President, you have the opinion of Commodore Stewart, and I want no higher opinion. I am always willing to avail myself, in matters of that kind, of the opinions of those who are particularly instructed in them. You have the opinion of Commodore Stewart, that those vessels are built for the purposes of war; you have the same opinion from Commodore Perry-and I will state further, that although originally Commodore Perry thought it might be necessary to remove the upper decks, in the event of preparing them for war steamers, he does not now entertain that opinion, as I understood from him in a personal conversation within the last few weeks. That such vessels could not fight at pistol shot I admit, but the capacity of such a vessel for war purposes does not depend on that. It is perfectly true, that, in former times, when you had sailing vessels alone, of necessity, when vessels encountered each other hostilely, they were brought into close contact in order to determine their relative superiority, because one vessel, controlled by such an element as wind, though she might have the advantage of speed, in taking her position, could not maintain that while firing upon her adversary so as to do her material injury, and prevent her approach; but with the element of steam as a motive power, where there is a decided superiority in the velocity of the vessel, then the vessel having the superior velocity, though she may not have the same number of guns on board, beyond all question, must overcome the vessel which is inferior in speed.

If a vessel is capable of carrying ten-inch guns, and throwing those projectiles used in modern warfare, one of which, the honorable Senator tells us, would be sufficient to destroy a ship if it struck her near the water line, does it not stand to reason, that if that vessel has four or five knots greater speed than her adversary, no matter what is the relative strength of the two, she can, with such an element as steam, take her position at such a distance as effectually to throw her shot, whilst exposing only her bow to the attack of her opponent? It is perfectly well known that there is an angle within which, if the bows of the vessel fall, a shot will glance when it strikes; and these vessels are constructed so sharp as to come within that angle, and, bow on, they encounter little risk of injury from a hostile vessel.

I have had a conversation, of which I took a short memorandum, with the chief engineer of your Navy. He has been in your service fourteen years. He has sailed, under the orders or permis