H. OF R.]

Improvement of Harbors.

from Baltimore to Washington cannot have been forgot ten by many present. I will add, as it relates to myself, that there is not even an application from my district for an appropriation for any public purpose. There is not a man in my district, to my knowledge, who is interested in any Western land speculation. I will now ask, with what propriety does the honorable gentleman charge that this committee was formed on the principle of extravagance? The present Speaker had his own authority for appointing two thirds of them, and for the location, which seems to be his principal proof, of all except one. The gentleman shrunk from the task of pointing out, on this committee, the names of those who, from location or other cause, were tainted with extravagance. Sir, the charge is unfounded, both as it relates to the members of the committee and the Speaker. That gentle. man needs some proof besides location and naked assertion, to sustain his charge against either. He will find the votes of the members of the present committees are as free from censure as those of persons differently located, and as free as those who were appointed by him. A proper sense of what is due to the members of this House, and the country, ought to have induced him to have withheld his charge until he could have sustained it by better evidence.

But, sir, these committees were not, in my judgment, the principal objects of attack. He could have had but little object in dealing blows at them. To him it is far more important, and it is more consonant with the drift of his labors during this session, to make the Speaker's seat an uneasy one-to make it totter under him. His rival occupies that station, which is the highest in this House, and one of the most honorable in the nation. He failed to unite with the honorable gentleman in the celebrated caucus at the last session. He stood, in 1834, almost the sole champion of the President from Tennessee. He resisted, with all the force of strong argument, the multiplied attacks on the President for removing the deposites. He is now his fast friend. He has been elected Speaker by the votes of the friends of the administration; by the votes of those who then sus tained the President, and who now sustain him. The honorable gentleman, though almost the sole opposing candidate, failed of success. I leave him to tell by the votes of what party he was sustained. If the national republicans, nullifiers, and abolitionists, had any candidate but himself, he can name him. If, in 1834, or since, he has uttered a word in defence of the Hero of New Orleans, he will confer an obligation by pointing it out. This session, the journals will show how often the honorable gentleman has followed the lead of the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. ADAMS,] and voted with the special friends of Messrs. Clay and Calhoun and the abolitionists, and in opposition to the friends of the President. When a member of the party with which he is acting, in the last Congress, called his constituent (the President) a toothless tyrant, I ask, did he raise his voice to resent it? Did he hurl back the slander, as honorable gentlemen usually do, when their constituents are attacked?. If he did, I did not hear it. It is the present Speaker who repelled all such attacks. Unless defending the President, and declining to attend the caucus, are crimes, I know not what offence the Speaker has been guilty of, that he should be hunted down by his colleague. If, before he refused to attend that caucus, he was known to the ex-Speaker to have been of such doubtful integrity as his present charge implies, how did he reconcile it with the dictates of duty to appoint him chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, the most prominent place he could assign him in the organization of the House? Spectators view the honorable gentleman's course, at this session, as designed to burl his successful rival from the chair, and prostrate

[JUNE 24, 1836,

him in disgrace. How was this to be done? Not by
open and bold attack at the commencement, which could
be repelled, but by the subtilty of indirection. What
has been his course this session towards his colleague,
who must occupy the chair in silence? At the very out-
set of this session, while smarting under the sting of de-
feat, he began his complaints about the rules of order;
they were wrong. He would not say that the present
incumbent did actually abuse his power under them,
but he might do so; they were liable to great abuse; the
freedom of speech and of the people depended upon
taking away the vast and frightful power collected in
the hands of the Speaker. Yes, sir, as soon as his rival
became the expounder of these rules, which have been
in use for years, he desires them altered. But while he
was in the chair, the Speaker's power under them ex-
cited no terror, no alarm, in his bosom. The power
was safe in his hands, when he was applying the rules
to his rival and others; but when taken from him, and
given to another, this hall echoes with the notes of his
fears. Years have rolled by without an effort, so far as
I can learn, on his part, to limit this dreaded power.
Now, its safety is doubted in the hands of one whom the
majority preferred over him for Speaker. The gen
erosity and nobleness of all this I will not now comment
upon. I will here remark, that those who have aban
doned the Chief Magistrate, and joined the standard f
his enemies, usually remove the mask by degrees. They
usually commence by throwing out insinuations, and end
in the use of assertion. The effort is first to induce a
belief that there is something wrong in the President
known to them; next, that he is changing; then changed;
and all ends in pronouncing him entirely unworthy of
support. They never commence boldly, and admit their
own change, but slip off by degrees, like deserters.
The public mind must first be prepared by insinuation
and suspicion, before it will believe a charge not fully
sustained by proof.

Sir, if the people could be led to doubt whether the rules were fairly applied and properly executed, they might then the more readily believe the charge that they actually had not been. Settle this belief firmly, and then they would the more readily believe the allegation that the committees were appointed on the principle of extravagance. Without these preliminary steps, this charge would find few believers. What is here mere insinuation in these things, swelling with the distance it travels, when it reaches Tennessee, becomes matter of positive allegation and belief.

Sir, I know the presiding officer of this House well. I have for three years been a witness to his manly and honorable course in defence of the administration, the constitution, and rights of the people; and until the honorable gentleman opened his batteries upon him, I never heard even an insinuation breathed against him. Even his political opponents bear testimony to his capacity, honesty, and impartiality. The honorable testimony of Mr. Banks, on resigning his seat here, to this effect, is a matter of record on the files of the House. The witnesses of his liberality, ability, firmness, and honesty, are on every side of me. I can hardly imagine that any thing short of deep-rooted personal hostility could induce any man, an observer of his acts, to charge him with official misconduct, either in executing the rules and orders of the House, or in the formation of the committees. If record evidence is needed as to the correctness and propriety of his decisions, we have it in the strong and deci sive vote by which his decisions are uniformly sustained. The names of his political opponents, as well as his friends, are found sustaining these decisions. At this session thirty-three appeals have been taken. Three of them were laid on the table, which is equivalent to sus taining him; nine of them were withdrawn by those

JUNE 24, 1836.]

Improvement of Harbors.

who appealed; twenty affirmed, and but one reversed. In the latter case, he gave a more liberal construction to a new order than the House decided it was its intention it should bear. In this decision the Speaker was sustained by the voice and vote of the honorable gentleman. Certainly he cannot complain of that decision. If the Speaker's decisions had not been characterized by sound judgment and great fairness, he never would have been so triumphantly sustained.

The

to fewer objections, and is better adapted to the promo.
tion of order and good feeling. Without it, a small num-
ber may control the action of the House, and defeat all
business. The country might look in vain for the trans-
action of public business, if a minority could defeat it by
constant talking. The previous question is seldom call-
It is true it may
ed until the main question is understood. All parties,
when in a majority, resort to its use.
be abused, as it was, in my judgment, by the present
minority (then in the majority) in 1832, on the bank
question. It is not the use, but the abuse of it, that can
ever properly be objected to. Nearly every old mem-
ber here, as the journals show, has voted for it.
bill to recharter the United States Bank, and Mr.
Clay's land bill, passed this House by the use of the pre-
vious question, nearly every opponent of the administra
tion voting for it. The gentleman from Tennessee has
voted for this motion. The journals show that in one of
the votes connected with the passage of the "bloody
bill," as it is called, he voted for it. They also show
that, on the celebrated resolutions concerning the remo-
val of the public deposites, and the recharter of the Uni-
ted States Bank, in 1834, he voted for the previous
The journal of this session shows him voting
question.
This motion is now often made by his
for that question on the pension bill, which was very
little discussed.
own friends. It was demanded the other day by the
gentleman from Alabama, [Mr. Lewis,] who very per-
tinently remarked to his friends, that it was not their
speeches, but their votes, that he wanted. If it is wrong
to vote for this question, the gentleman and his associates
are as guilty as others. If it is right, I really hope he
will cease his complaints concerning it.

The honorable gentleman makes another charge, which, in its consequences, is calculated to injure the Speaker. He says, at this session there has been great This seems intended to convey disorder in the House. the idea that he is not competent to preserve order. This is not a reproach upon his honesty, but a disparagement of his capacity, and is calculated to have effect out of this House. It seems to be designed to have the orI must conder of this session contrasted with the past. fess that this effort of the ex-Speaker to show his successor to disadvantage, by comparison with himself, is an interesting specimen of modesty. That there has been disorder in the House, I do not deny; but I deny that it is the fault of the presiding officer. That gentleman told us long since, that the minority were always restive and uneasy, and if they could not accomplish their objects orderly, they would do so disorderly; and that it was natural for those who were restrained to find fault. I leave others to say whether his is not a fair illustration of this last position. He knows full well that the disorders have proceeded mostly from those whom When gentlemen were out he described as restrained. of order, I should like to know how often he has voted I should them to be so, and to prevent their going on. be happy to learn that he had, even for once, endeavored to use his influence to check disorders. The command-portunity for political discussion this session. This is a ing position of that gentleman would enable him to effect much in quieting those who were restrained, if he chose to do so. But the journals will show, that he had even moved to allow a member, decided to be out of order by a vote of the House, to proceed. I will not name those from whom the disorder proceeds, but this House and the country know who they are, and their relation to that gentleman. I hope he will now allow the Speaker a respite, and that he will turn his attention to those who have been the authors of the disorders complained of, and read them such a lesson as shall prevent like future occurrences.

The gentleman is sorely annoyed with the Globe and several other papers, and occasionally occupies the attention of the House with a chapter of griefs on their account. I know little of the merits of his controversies with them, and shall not attempt their defence while they are so able to defend themselves. It is not beyond probability that we should hear little on this score, if he It was altogether victorious in his conflicts with them. is not usually the victor who complains of his antagonist. The gentleman has often complained, this session, of the rule of the House which authorizes the demand of the previous question. He and his friends have heaped showers of epithets upon it, calling it the engine of tyranny, gag-law, &c., until an old and valuable rule of the House is in danger of being considered highly exceptionable and improper. I will here take occasion to make a few remarks on the previous question. The constitution authorizes each House to make rules for the government of its own proceedings. This House long since adopted rules which are now in operation. These rules have in view the order and despatch of business. Among them is the rule giving the previous question, which terminates debate. I am informed that in the British Parliament no such rule exists, and the only way to stop debate is to cough down whoever attempts to speak against the will of a majority. Our rule is liable

The gentleman complains that there has been no op

But

strange complaint to come from that quarter. To give
other members, all of whom have the same right to
claim that he has, the same time at political discussion
On the 9th of
which he has taken on two bills this session, would re-
quire a session of about three years.
February, when the navy appropriation bill came up, he
moved to reduce the appropriations, I believe, one half,
and opened a political discussion on it, which terminated
the 7th of April. The gentleman then occupied the
time of the House about four days. In the end, on a
motion in the same words as his own, although sitting
in the House, he was silent and did not vote for it.
six voted for that reduction. Why he made a motion
If the motion
that he did not vote for, I cannot say.
was made with the view of having it prevail, I should
have expected him to have voted for it; but if merely to
allow him a chance at political discussion, which he ac-
tually enjoyed, then this complaint is groundless. When
this bill came up, he made a motion to strike out the
enacting clause, and followed up his motion by a six
hours' speech, entirely political, relating to almost every
thing but the question before the House, and at the end
of it withdrew his motion. This is a practical comment-
The country will decide
ary upon his complaints.
whether President-making is the business which they
send us here to transact, to the neglect of all other busi-
ness, and whether he has had a sufficient opportunity at
it. The gentleman, though hard pressed for time for
political discussion, has nevertheless found enough to
enable him to visit New York, to study her institutions,
and particularly her politics. His discoveries are im-
portant, and deserve to be recorded, to show his good
will towards us. He has compared my fellow-citizens to
the ruthless savages, who, by deeds of blood and vio-
lence, were a terror to all who surrounded them. I envy
not the feelings of a statesman who allows himself to
make such comparisons of a virtuous and good people.
My native State manages her affairs in a manner satisfac-

tory to herself, and consistent with her prosperity; and the shaft of envy, by whatever arm it may be hurled, will fall harmless at her feet. She neither offers nor receives dictation; and if he is really a State rights man, we shall expect he will allow us the privilege, which other States enjoy, of managing our own affairs in our own way. We shall not quarrel with Tennessee, because about a dozen of her members of Congress, through a caucus, attempted to bring out a presidential candidate; and I hope he will allow us the privilege of se lecting candidates in our own way, by conventions of the people, as has been the custom of both parties for many years. In connexion with this subject, he spoke of a system of rewards and punishments, and that it extended to the operations of the Federal Government. He told us partisans were rewarded and punished according to their compliance with, or resistance to, dictation. referred to our minister to England, (Mr. Stevenson,) to He Mr. Taney, Mr. Barbour, the Speaker, and others, to illustrate and prove his position. If he intends to convey the idea that either of these gentlemen have abandoned their republican principles, or acted contrary to their own sense of public duty, at the bidding of any one, I take issue with him, and challenge his proofs. The President, as well as a majority of this House, has selected able and competent friends for high stations, nstead of opponents. In this, the President followed the course of Mr. Jefferson and our other Presidents. The gentleman selects from bis friends, and is supported by his friends. But why does he refer to the Speaker as having received his reward? He has, with great energy and success, sustained the present administration, and continues steady in its support. Is there any thing wrong in this? In the last Congress, the gentleman generally voted with him; but with whom does he now vote? The journals show the House divided now, as it was then, except the gentleman and some of his colleagues are found voting with the nullifiers, federalists, and bank men, all of whom are, and have been, the President's ardent and bitter opponents. In selecting a Speaker, the majority gave the known friend of the President a preference over one who was supported by his opponents, and one whose friendship was justly doubted. If this is a reward, it is the reward of merit, honestly and intelligently bestowed. But how stands his own case? He was once made Speaker by opposition votes, and was the candidate of that party this session. Was there any reward, actual or attempted, on either of these occasions? Does he not see that his charge may be turned upon himself? If one, continuing with his friends, receives a mark of distinguished consideration from them, and it is called a reward, what term shall we apply to one, when a similar favor is shown or attempted, when he changes sides?

The gentleman exclaims vehemently against those in power; his indictment is general, embracing all who differ with him in opinion, but is always without specifications. Will he ever specify the wrongs, and the criminals, so that the latter may be arraigned, tried, convicted, and punished? Duty requires specific exposures, if he is apprized of these alleged wrongs. ceals a crime known to him has a heavy responsibility on He who conhis shoulders. The gentleman has told us that the power of the Executive in this House controlled the majority. This is the charge, stripped of all verbiage. Many of his friends have sought to establish it. If it is true, this charge is a serious one, deserving high consideration. If such influence is exercised to promote laudable purposes, he of course will not object to the end, but deprecate the means only. If it is exercised for bad pur. poses, he ought to complain, and duty requires him to expose it. He will perceive that he makes a serious charge, not only against the President, but against the

[JUNE 24, 1836.

members of this House, Is he prepared to sustain it? If so, I hope he will give us his proof. He has also told us, in another part of the speech, that the President and his party were against the election of President and Vice President coming into this House. He informed us that this was an effort to gull the people, and then gravely inquired if the representatives of the people were not to constitution? Now, it is quite certain, if the President be trusted with the power conferred on them by the has and can exercise the alarming and tremendous power over this House which he has described to us, then they are not to be trusted. He told us the President was attempting to appoint a successor. If the election comes into the House, and he desires thus to appoin', then, on the gentleman's own ground, he will be certain to do it, and the people should guard against the possibility of his exercising this power. It is very certain that the President either has not the power over the House which he ascribes to him, or the House is not to be trusted; and I leave the gentleman to reconcile his different positions. If the President has this power, and wishes to appoint a willing to trust the election to this House, nor how the successor, I cannot perceive how the gentleman can be President and his friends can object to its coming into the House, if it is certain that the former has and exercises the influence here which the gentleman ascribes to him.

that one of the reasons why large appropriations are If I can understand another of his charges, he alleges sought to be made is, to increase the patronage of the General Government, so that it can control the elections. The President, in vetoing the Maysville road bill, the desired to limit executive patronage. You, sir, and bill to recharter the United States Bank, and other bills, know that the dispensation of patronage is the most every person who has held an executive station, must troublesome of all executive duties. I will ask the gensubject since he gave those vetoes? If he has changed tleman if the President has changed his views on this his opinions, I ask for the proof. He often entertains us ers; and on one occasion, by including among them the with an account of the alarming numbers of office-holdpensioners, swelled their numbers to sixty thousand. Whether the war-worn soldier is an officer, or not, I leave others to decide. They were enumerated to swell the number of those whom he alleges conform their acts to the executive will. If he really feared that the Exechappen that the other day he voted for a pension bill utive would abuse his trust in this respect, how did it system beyond all former precedent? Yes, sir; he not which is likely to add thousands to the list, extending the only voted for that bill, but, when the discussion had hardly commenced, voted for the previous question on it. Why did he vote for the previous question? Was it to save time? If so, why, a week afterwards, at the and then withdraw his motion at the end of his speech? heel of the session, did he speak six hours on this bill,

sion, commented upon the gentleman's course, in not
My colleague, [Mr. VANDERPOEL,] on a former occa
raising bis voice in defence of the President for remov.
ing the deposites. He assigned, in reply, this extraordi-
which produced that measure.
nary reason: that he knew too much of the secret springs
that there was something wrong and censurable at the
The meaning of this is,
bottom of this measure, which he knew and condemned;
and we may infer the public would have done so, if it
had known it. I ask why, if there was any thing wrong
fearless representative, it was his duty to have done so;
known to him, he did not disclose it? As an honest and
but if there was nothing wrong, why assign such a rea-
rect, and useless reason, or he has neglected his duty to
son for his silence? He has either assigned a bad, incor-
the public in not apprizing others of the reason which

operated upon him, and which might have changed their views, and the decision of that subject. In one part of his speech he told us that the President was a highminded, honorable, independent man; in another he informed us that he had violated his pledges, by interfering in the freedom of elections, and was ruled by bad, dishonest men. If the President is honest, then he has not violated his pledges; and if he is independent, then he is not controlled by others. I will thank him to inform us which of these positions are to be relied upon as correct? He further told us, that although the President and his friends were committed against the old United States Bank, they were not as to a new one. This is a strange declaration to proceed from that gentleman. The President is known to be opposed to all chartered monopolies. This is the leading opinion among the friends of the administration in this House. No friend of republican principles and equal rights will ever vote for another United States Bank. Those who have read that gentleman's published speech on the subject of the recharter will, however, be surprised that he should deem it censurable to vote for a United States Bank.

The gentleman has talked much of the acts and professions of the President and his friends, by which the people were "gulled." He told us that when it was objected to the election of President coming into the House of Representatives, it was an effort to "gull the people." I understand it to be the settled opinion of the democracy of this country that an election ought never to come into the House. But let us look back to 1824. What then was the almost united voice of Tennessee? What said the gentleman and his friends on this subject then? Was there then an attempt to gull the people? General Jackson then had a large plurality of the votes of the people, but was defeated in the House. His friends cried out bribery and corruption, and the House-President and his associates were expelled from power, and the people's President came into office. The gentleman will hardly admit that General Jackson's friends were then gulling the people. Have principles changed, or has the gentleman changed? He has led us to Greece and Rome to witness the operations of tyranny. He has held up to our view Cromwell kicking Parliament out of doors, and Napoleon ruling France at his discretion, and then warned us against the encroachments of executive power. Comparing the President with tyranny is a new way of demonstrating friendship. It will require something beyond the force of comparison either to make the President a tyrant, or cause the people to believe him one. If the gentleman still insists that he is a friend of the President, why make these allusions and comparisons? If an opponent, will he admit it? Why has he changed?

In a subsequent part of his speech, the gentleman told us that the President and his friends professed to be in favor of a gold and silver currency, which, on a former occasion, the gentleman called the "gold and silver bumbug," and remarked that this was another effort to gull the people. He also remarked that success in such efforts seemed to depend upon the boldness with which they were made. I know that the President and the great body of his friends are in favor of a cons'itutional currency; one which possesses intrinsic and uniform value in all parts of the world; one which gives the mammoth speculators no preference over the rest of the community; and one which is opposed to those monopolies which are injurions to the true interests of the people. If it is wrong to entertain such constitutional opinions, and publish them boldly, then indeed be and they are guilty. That gentleman, I presume, has great confidence in this matter of boldness and apparent confidence; and, from his free use of them, one might conVOL. XII.-280

[H. of R.

clude that with him much depended upon them; for no one has ever exceeded him in bold and confident assertion. It seems to be one of the great weapons which he uses on nearly all occasions. I might pursue the gentleman throughout several of his speeches, and show that many of his positions concerning the President have little but this boldness of assertion to sustain them; but, as my friend from Virginia [Mr. GARLAND] Suggests, the President does not need defence from these oft-repulsed attacks. I am conscious that the arrows from the gentleman's quiver will fall harmless at the President's feet. The nation will protect his honor with the same sacred honesty of purpose as he protected New Orleans and now protects the constitution. I will leave to time the recording his deeds of valor, and to dispel any clouds that may be attempted to be raised to obscure or destroy his fame, whether they are the works of pretended friends or real enemies.

When Mr. GILLET had concluded,

Mr. SMITH said it had not been his intention to have uttered a word, nor have detained the committee a single moment upon the subject of either the pending bill, or the other bill of a kindred nature, reported by himself from the Committee of Ways and Means, except to make such explanations in relation to the latter as should be called for relative to facts which might, from his peculiar situation, be supposed within his own possession, and not in possession of members generally. Nor would he have risen against his intention, at this time, had he not discovered, or thought that he could discover, a somewhat prevalent inclination in this committee, now in session, to draw a distinction between the merits of the bill reported by the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. SUTHERLAND,] and which is technically called the new harbor bill, and the bill which had been laid aside, reported by himself, and which is called the old harbor bill. I have (said Mr. S.) explained and defended the purposes of this last-named bill to the best of my feeble abilities, and this committee have substantially and in effect adopted it, with very slight additions. In view of this fact, I deem it my duty, a duty which I owe to this committee and to the nation, now that I see an attempt made to discriminate between the purposes and works embraced by these two bills, and to sustain the one at the expense of the other, to lay before this committee and the nation such facts and views as are at once suggested to my mind by such a course of procedure, illustrative of the relative merits and claims of the bill reported by myself, and the bill now pending, reported by the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Chairman, these bills embrace objects of precisely one and the same classification. It is the purpose of each to secure appropriations for the construction and improvement of harbors upon the seacoast, upon the interior lakes, and rivers in the Western States. The one is confined to works of this description already commenced and partially completed; and the other is confined to works of the same description, that have been projected at different dates, surveyed, but never commenced otherwise. The appropriations of the one bill that reported by myself) amount to $939,384 43, with the amendments thereto, and the aggregate of the other is $931,265 51, making a total of $1,860,649 94. Now, it is contended that the superior merit of the former billthe only distinctive merit, in truth, of that bill, over the latter bill-consists in the fact that they are works that have been heretofore commenced-works upon which large sums of money have already been expendedworks that are in a state of advancement and partial completion; while those in the other bill are altogether And hence it is, as the argument runs, that they are entitled to a preference; and hence it is that gentlemen upon this floor are predisposed to award to them a

new.