ecutive, at his discretion, to augment the allowance to Foreign Ministers.

Mr Cambreleng thought the gentleman from Massachusetts must have confounded the Secret Service Fund with the Fund for Foreign Intercourse. That was the only fund which the Committee on Retrenchment proposed to abolish.

Mr Everett said, I am not mistaken. The Committee of Retrenchment proposed to abolish the fund appropriated for the contingent expenses of all the missions abroad,' as the gentleman from New York would find by turning to their report.

Mr Norton said, during his legislative life he had always voted for the largest sum reported by the Committee. He was not one who expected to build himself up by talking of retrenchment. He did not feel as if he was called upon to inquire whether the sum received was large or small; he trusted to the able gentleman who was at the head of the Committee of Ways and Means, and he should vote for it as it stood.

The bill was then passed and sent to the Senate for concurrence. In the Senate the bill was taken up on the 4th of March and an amendment reported by the Committee of Finance to strike out the amendments proposed in the House by Messrs Wickliffe and Polk, in relation to the printing of Congress, became the topic of

discussion. The debate was inter

rupted by other business and postponed to the next day, when the bill was again taken up.

A division was called for by Mr Barnard, and the question was taken on the first member of the sentence, viz: to strike out the words Provided, That no part of the appropriation shall be applied to any printing other than of such documents or papers as are connected with the ordinary proceedings of either of the said Houses, during the session, and determined in negative - yeas 22, nays 23.

On the question to strike out the residue of the sentence, viz: and executed by the public printers agreeably to their contracts, unless authorized by an act or a joint resolution; it was determined in the negative-yeas 22, nays 23.

A motion was made to strike out the outfits of the new ministers appointed since the 4th of March, 1829, and negatived yeas 3, nays 39.

Certain unimportant amendments were then made in the bill, which was passed and sent to the House, where the amendments were concurred in and the bill became a law.

By this act the following appropriations were made, viz :

For the expenses of the Ex

ecutive Department, includ-
ing salaries of Vice Presi-
dent, all the Departments at
Washington and of the terri-
torial governments,

of Diplomatic intercourse,
Of Congress,

of

the Judicial Department,

$640,184

248,500

670,050

243,023

For light-houses, beacons, &c. 231,103 For pensions,

For taking the census of 1830,

For miscellaneous expenses,

in addition to $350,000 for-
merly appropriated,

1,750 67,700

250,000

24,163

10,000

360,000

100,000

56,000

90,200

The bill making appropriations for the Engineer, Ordnance and Quarter-master's Department was taken up in the House, March 30th and continued under examination the next day and also April first and fifth. An appropriation of $150,000 for arming the new fortifications was stricken out by the House - yeas 120, nays 43. A motion made by Mr Crocket to strike out an appropriation of 2,500 dollars for erecting a military laboratory at West Point was negatived: as was also a motion to strike out an appropriation for a military road in Arkansas, and one for the purchase of five and a half acres of land in Springfield for the use of the national armory.

The bill was amended in the Senate and the House concurred in two of the amendments. From the other amendment it dissented and the Senate receding from it, the bill passed and became a law. By this act appropriations were made

Quarter-master's Department
Military Academy,
Contingencies,

National armories,
Armament of fortifications,
Current expenses of ordnance
service,
Arsenals,

Recruiting service,

For arrearages prior to 1817,

66

of 1828,

8,377 6,000 270

When the bill appropriating these last items came under consideration, Mr Vance moved an amendment to the clause giving pay to Colonel M'Neill, so as to preclude him from receiving pay both as an officer of the army and as a commissioner to hold a treaty with the Indians.

Mr Miller asked if the officer alluded to had received his pay as an officer and was about to receive the pay as a commissioner.

Mr Vance said he did not know the fact, but he knew what had been the practice. The officer now at the head of this government received his full pay as an officer, and also as a commissioner for holding treaties.

Mr Cambreleng asked if there were not some incidental ex

penses.

Mr Vance said, that could not affect the item under consideration.

Mr Wickliffe said he should vote for the amendment.

Mr McDuffie suggested that General M'Neill should have his option, either to take his pay as an officer or his pay as a commissioner.

Mr Vance then modified his amendment so as to make its phraseology correspond with the wishes of Mr McDuffie.

The amendment was agreed to. The bill was then reported to the House, when

Mr Miller objected to the amendment as to the pay of General M'Neill.

Mr Buchanan also took exception to this amendment, on the ground that however just the principle that the Government had an undoubted right to the whole services of their officers, it was not correct to apply the principle in a case where the officer must have accepted the duty under the implied understanding that the old practice was to be continued. He suggested that the Committee on Retrenchment should report a bill to prevent these double allowances.

Mr Wickliffe stated that the Committee had reported such a bill.

Mr Burges spoke in favor of the amendment, and asked gentlemen from what law or practice officers received extra pay for civil services. If there was none such, then there could be no im

plied understanding that in the present case such would be the result. He stated the practice to have been that an officer who was employed in the civil service, should not receive pay as an officer at the time that he was receiving pay for those civil services. There was a rule in existence under the old Congress which prevents such double pay; and no gentleman had produced any law showing a contrary practice. We are, however, promised a millennium of retrenchment; and so we had been promised from year to year. He hoped such would be the case, and that abuse after abuse should not be permitted until we became bankrupt by precedent. He would have given this officer his double pay if such was the contract made with him, but not under the idea that there existed any implied understanding in consequence of any existing law tolerating such construction.

Mr Polk made some observations in reply, in which he expressed himself content with the amendment.

Mr Vance disclaimed any idea of introducing party feelings, as was intimated by the last gentleman. He thought that although he did not belong to the Committee on Retrenchment, he had supposed he might offer something like a bit of retrenchment. He stated that he had always been an enemy to those double allowances; and had determined to take the first opportunity of resisting them. In this case the officer was perhaps less entitled to this double pay than any, be

cause he commanded a post in the immediate neighborhood of these Indians, and as a commander of the post he had double rations and extra allowances. He did not wish to introduce party considerations. He had indeed referred to a distinguished individual who had received double pay; and if the gentleman wished to draw back money from those who had received double allowances it will operate as severely at head-quarters as any where. He asked for the yeas and nays on this question.

Mr Drayton defended the practice of employing officers as commissioners to hold Indian treaties, and moved to amend the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio, by striking out all after the word that,' and inserting words which made the provision general and prospective.

Mr Vance said he had been asked by a gentleman from Pennsylvania if this had been the practice of Government, and he had risen and said this was the practice, and had referred to the only case within his knowledge. He wished to be understood as having had good reason for his reference; and if he had misunderstood the exact terms of the interrogatories put to him he had merely made a mistake, and he was willing to have it attributed to him whether he had made his remark gratuitously or not.

Mr Grennell replied briefly to the remarks of the gentleman from South Carolina, as to the peculiar propriety of employing officers as negotiators, and to the idea thrown out that General

M'Neill had entered on the duties of commissioner under the implied understanding that he was entitled to double pay.

Mr Barnwell made some remarks in favor of the double allowance to General M'Neill. He contended that where, by an erroneous construction, officers had received more than the sums to which they were entitled, it was unjust to compel him who had rendered the service, to refund. The fault is in those who have put the false construction on the law, and who alone should be responsible.

Mr Davis, of Massachusetts, rose and observed that, he should not detain the House but a moment, as it appeared to be anxious to take the question. But he would join the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr Barnwell), in calling attention back to the real ground of discussion. The bill provided for the reimbursement of money paid by the Executive, where no appropriation had been made for the services of an officer of the army holding by brevet the rank of a Brigadier General, who had served as a commissioner in making a treaty with the Winnebagoes and others. This officer, at the time of his appointment, was in the military service, and drawing his pay; and the question is, whether he shall, in addition to his pay as an officer, receive also the pay of a commissioner.

The appointment, he said, was not a military command, which the officer was obliged to obey, but a civil commission which he had his option to accept or de