Chapter M: CAMPBELL then rose and spoke as follows (28)

_Exclusion of Army and Naval Officers from Civil Offices._

The House took up the unfinished business of yesterday, being the report of the Committee of the Whole, agreeing to the following resolution, offered by Mr. J. RANDOLPH:

3d. _Resolved_, That provision ought to be made, by law, to
render any officer in the Army or Navy of the United States
incapable of holding any civil office under the United States.

Mr. FISK moved to postpone this resolution indefinitely.

This motion was supported by Messrs. FISK, ELMER, and COOK; and opposed by Messrs. J. CLAY, J. RANDOLPH, and J. C. SMITH.

When the question was taken by yeas and nays, and the motion disagreed to--yeas 43, nays 72.

The question was then taken that the House do agree with the Committee of the whole House in their agreement to the said resolution, and resolved in the affirmative--yeas 94, nays 21, as follows:

YEAS.--Willis Alston, jun., Isaac Anderson, David Bard, Burwell
Bassett, George M. Bedinger, Silas Betton, William Blackledge,
John Blake, junior, Thomas Blount, Robert Brown, William
Butler, John Campbell, Levi Casey, Martin Chittenden, John
Claiborne, Christopher Clark, Joseph Clay, Matthew Clay, John
Clopton, Frederick Conrad, Leonard Covington, John Dawson,
William Dickson, Elias Earle, Peter Early, James Elliot, Caleb
Ellis, William Ely, John W. Eppes, William Findlay, James
Fisk, James M. Garnett, Peterson Goodwyn, Edwin Gray, Andrew
Gregg, Silas Halsey, John Hamilton, Seth Hastings, David
Holmes, David Hough, John G. Jackson, Walter Jones, Thomas
Kenan, John Lambert, Michael Leib, Joseph Lewis, junior, Duncan
MacFarland, Robert Marion, Josiah Masters, Nicholas R. Moore,
Thomas Moore, Jeremiah Morrow, John Morrow, Jonathan O. Mosely,
Gurdon S. Mumford, Thomas Newton, junior, Gideon Olin, Timothy
Pitkin, jun., John Pugh, Josiah Quincy, John Randolph, Thomas
M. Randolph, John Rea of Pennsylvania, Jacob Richards, Peter
Sailly, Thomas Sammons, Thomas Sanford, Martin G. Schuneman,
John Smilie, John Cotton Smith, John Smith, Samuel Smith,
Thomas Spalding, Richard Stanford, Joseph Stanton, William
Stedman, Lewis B. Sturges, Samuel Taggart, Benjamin Tallmadge,
Samuel Tenney, David Thomas, Philip R. Thompson, Thomas W.
Thompson, Uri Tracy, Abram Trigg, Killian K. Van Rensselaer,
Peleg Wadsworth, Robert Whitehill, David R. Williams, Marmaduke
Williams, Nathan Williams, Alexander Wilson, Richard Wynn, and
Joseph Winston.

NAYS.--Evan Alexander, Joseph Barker, Barnabas Bidwell, John
Chandler, Orchard Cook, Jacob Crowninshield, Richard Cutts,
Ezra Darby, John Davenport, junior, Ebenezer Elmer, Isaiah
L. Green, James Kelly, William McCreery, Roger Nelson, John
Rhea of Tennessee, John Russell, Ebenezer Seaver, James Sloan,
Joseph B. Varnum, John Whitehill, and Eliphalet Wickes.

_Ordered_, That a bill, or bills, be brought, in pursuant to the said resolution; and that Mr. JOHN RANDOLPH, Mr. DAVID R. WILLIAMS, and Mr. JOHN C. SMITH, do prepare and bring in the same.

FRIDAY, April 4.

_Prohibition of Military Officers from holding Civil Office._

Mr. JOHN RANDOLPH, from the committee appointed on the second instant, presented a bill to prohibit officers of the Army and Navy from holding or exercising any civil office; which was read twice, and committed to a Committee of the Whole to-morrow.

TUESDAY, April 8.

_Motion to Adjourn._

On motion of Mr. EARLY,

“_Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America, in Congress assembled_, That
the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of
Representatives be, and they are hereby, authorized to adjourn
their respective Houses on Wednesday, the sixteenth of April
instant.”

_Ordered_, That the Clerk of this House do carry the said resolution to the Senate, and desire their concurrence.

THURSDAY, April 10.

_Navy Appropriations._

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the bill making appropriations for the support of the Navy of the United States, during the year one thousand eight hundred and six.

The bill was read by sections.

The CHAIRMAN having read that part of the bill which makes an appropriation “for repair of vessels, store rent, pay of armorers, freight, and other contingent expenses,”[37]

Mr. J. RANDOLPH moved to fill the blank with $411,950.

Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS moved to strike out the words “and other contingent expenses.” He said he made this motion with a view of ascertaining for what objects these contingent expenses were intended to provide. He would ask the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means for information on this point. He believed the sum contemplated to be appropriated unnecessarily large.

Mr. J. RANDOLPH said the gentleman had asked for information which it was not in his power to give. He was as much in the dark as the gentleman as to the items of contingent expenditure; and he should not have moved to fill this blank with so large a sum, but from the conviction that whether they provided the money or not, it would be spent, and an additional appropriation be made the next session. Mr. R. said he viewed an appropriation bill, under present circumstances, a mere matter of form; he believed also all the items of appropriation might as well be lumped together, and it might be declared that a million of dollars were appropriated. Had he been governed by his own opinion, instead of the forms which had been observed, he would have been in favor of drafting the bill in this way, for this reason: If the expenditures of the Navy exceeded this sum by $600,000 there was no doubt the next Congress would make good the deficiency without any inquiry. He believed this, as what had taken place once might take place again.

Mr. R. said he had addressed a note to the head of the department, stating that on such a day the Committee of Ways and Means wished the appropriation bill to be taken up, and expressing a desire that he would give them information of the items of contingent expenditure, as they consider the sum required unnecessarily large. He had received an answer to this effect--the Secretary said he did not think the sum too large, without entering into any explanation. Mr. R. added, gentlemen may fill the blank as they please; it will be no check on the expenditure.

The Committee divided on agreeing to the sum named by Mr. RANDOLPH--ayes 46, noes 37.

Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS moved to strike out “and other contingent expenses.” He had before said that he had been impelled to make this motion from a sense of duty. This impression had been strengthened by the statement of the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means. He could not think it proper to make an appropriation to so large an amount, when the proper organ of the House had without success required information from the head of the department, from whom he had only received a mere opinion. He hoped the committee would agree to strike out this general appropriation, that all the items of contingent expenditure might be stated to the House, and thereby form some check on the expenditure.

Mr. LEIB said he perceived in another part of the bill other mention made of contingent expenses. He would be glad to know what they were. The House ought to know the various items, or otherwise make a general provision for contingent expenses, and leave it to the head of the department to apply the money as he pleases.

Mr. DANA said the first contingent appropriation was for the navy, the second for the marine corps. If striking out the proposed words would enable the committee to obtain the information sought, he should vote for the motion. He had no objection to voting liberally for a navy; but he thought the Legislature ought to be well informed, as they would otherwise scarcely discharge their duty to their constituents.

The motion of Mr. WILLIAMS, to strike out “and other contingent expenses,” was disagreed to--ayes 32.

Mr. J. RANDOLPH moved to strike out that part of the bill making an appropriation “for completing the marine barracks at the city of Washington.” Mr. R. said this object appeared to require a standing appropriation; and, though the building was finite, the appropriation appeared to be infinite.

Motion agreed to--ayes 66.

The committee rose and reported the bill. The House having taken the report of the committee into consideration,

Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS, called for the reading of the document, stating the annual expenditures on the Navy, by which it appeared that the expenditures had been as follows:

For 1798 $ 570,314 24
1799 2,848,187 26
1800 3,385,340 48
1801 2,117,420 74
1802 946,213 24
1803 1,107,925 32
1804 1,246,502 74
1805 1,409,949 67
--------------
Total 13,631,853 00
==============

Mr. D. R. W. renewed his motion to strike out “and other contingent expenses.” He thought the House ought, under existing circumstances, to show a disposition to economize, and to curtail the expenses of the Navy. What is the necessity for this expenditure? Why, the Constitution is in the mud, and the President[38] on her beam ends! Thirteen millions and a half have been already expended, and it is now proposed to add $411,000 for contingent expenses. In making this motion I have no object but to confine the Navy Department to proper expenses; but let them first state what they are.

The SPEAKER observed that this motion could not be received until the amendments of the committee had been acted upon.

Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS moved to strike out “for ordnance $50,000,”[39] He did not perceive the use of this appropriation. No gentlemen accustomed to travel, but must have seen the unprotected state of the ordnance; look at the Turk’s house, you will there see it lying exposed. To his knowledge it was in many other instances in the same situation.

This motion was lost--ayes 33.

The amendment of the committee to fill the blank with “$50,000,” was agreed to, without a division.

Mr. EPPES offered a proviso declaring that a larger sum than $30,000 shall not be expended on the repairs of any one frigate.

Mr. J. RANDOLPH.--I shall vote against this motion on the same principle that I voted to fill the blank relative to contingent expenses, with $411,000. If we cannot restrain the expenditures of the Navy Department within the sum annually fixed, after giving as much as is asked for, is it not the idlest thing to attempt to restrain them by giving less? The principle on which I voted for filling that blank was this: To give to the Navy Department what it asks, that if, at the end of the year, more shall be expended, the blame may fall on the shoulders of the Secretary, and not on us. The sum appropriated for contingent expenses amounts to $411,000; this is not the half, but it is more than a third of the whole sum appropriated, and it may be expended on repairs or any other item of contingent expenditure. It is enormous. But withhold the appropriation, and where are you? The expense may be incurred, and the Government called on to make good the deficiency; and there the business will end.

With regard to the sum requisite for the repair of a frigate, her situation between this and the next year cannot be foreseen. The Secretary may have estimated $30,000 as sufficient to repair any one frigate as they now stand; but they may be placed in such a condition as to require a much larger sum. But I am against the amendment, said Mr. R., not only for these, but for other reasons. I will never consent to legislate in such a way as to make it appear that we did legislate intelligently, when in fact we do not. If I can be satisfied that $30,000 will be sufficient for the repair of a frigate, I may be induced to vote for it. But even this would be unnecessary. For, after all, the business must be confided to the Head of the Department; and he will be a better judge of the sum required for the repair of a vessel than we are. If he cannot be trusted, we ought, in my opinion, either to refuse the appropriation altogether, or take a very different step from that now proposed. For these reasons I am unwilling to appear to act understandingly on a subject which I know nothing about.

Mr. EPPES.--When I made this motion, it was under the impression that what is correct in private, is also correct in public conduct. We know that, when a vessel owned by a merchant gets in a certain state, it is more advisable to sell than to repair her. I do not know whether I have fixed the proper sum. All I wish to try is, whether the United States are disposed to repair at all events their frigates, whatever their state may be, or limit the sum, after expending which they shall be abandoned. I confess, however, that I am not anxious on this point. I merely wish to try the sense of the House.

On agreeing to Mr. E.’s motion, the House divided--ayes 38, noes 57.

Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS.--The curtailing Navy expenses may be unpopular, but I conceive it to be right. For that purpose I will renew the motion I offered in committee. I am of opinion that all the expenditures of this department should pass in review before the House. When I first came to Washington, I went to the navy yard. I there saw an elegant building going on. I inquired under what appropriation this was authorized, and was answered, under the appropriation for contingent expenses. I remarked other expenditures, and received the same information. These expenditures may be all proper; but I think that every gentleman on this floor ought to be enabled to tell his constituents how the public money is expended. Talk to them of contingencies, and they will understand as little of the term as of land in the moon. Mr. W. concluded by moving to strike out “and other contingent expenses,” and calling the yeas and nays.

Mr. SMILIE said that no gentleman would censure him for attachment to the Navy. He never had been, nor was he now attached to a Navy. But the situation in which they were placed was well known. If there was time, he should be glad to have every item of expenditure produced by the proper officer, that they might know how to act. He was fully aware that, in the Navy Department, it was more difficult to anticipate the expenses than in any other. Though, therefore, he was no friend to a Navy, as it had not been thought proper to abandon the establishment, he considered it right to make such grants as were necessary for its support. If it was early in the session, or if he thought it possible to get the information, he should vote for calling for it. But as they were reduced to the necessity of saying at once whether they would, or would not support the Navy, he should be in favor of making this grant.

The yeas and nays having been taken on Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS’s motion, were--yeas 25, nays 86.

Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS moved to recommit the bill to a Committee of the Whole, with the view of obtaining information from the Secretary of the Navy before it was definitively acted on.

The motion was disagreed to--ayes 41, noes 56; when the bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading without a division.

The motion to read the bill a third time on Saturday was carried--ayes 55, when the following motion, made by Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS, was agreed to without a division:

_Resolved_, That the Secretary of the Navy be directed to lay
before this House an estimate of the respective sums necessary
to be appropriated for repair of vessels, store rent, pay of
armorers, freight, and contingent expenses of the Navy for the
year 1806.

FRIDAY, April 11.

_Exclusion of Military and Naval Officers from Civil Employment._

The bill to prohibit officers of the Army and Navy of the United States from holding or exercising any civil office, was read a third time.

Mr. GREGG said he never found himself involved in greater difficulty. He was in favor of the principle involved in the bill, and yet he could not vote for its passage. He believed that it was a correct principle that civil and military offices should be kept distinct, and he wished the constitution had prohibited the union. In relation to the individual on whom it was mentioned yesterday this law was to operate, he was satisfied it would be best if he could be removed from one of the offices he held; and if such a course had been pursued, he should have been in favor of destroying the office of brigadier-general to get rid of the officer. The effect of this resolution would be to take from a man an office which he held under the constitution. This power they did not possess. The only constitutional way to effect the object was to destroy the office. He would agree likewise to amend the constitution, so as to declare the union of civil and military office incompatible, or to a law providing that after a certain time no person should hold two such offices; and he should, if practicable, be for doing away the office of Governor of Louisiana, because he believed the person holding that office was, by his course of proceedings, producing a disturbance in the Territory. But although he entertained a favorable opinion of the principle of the bill, and would wish to remove that gentleman from one of the offices he held, yet he must vote against the bill, as it went to the unconstitutional removal of an officer.

Mr. SMILIE thought the passage of this bill involved a principle of a very serious nature. As to the abstract principle involved in the bill, he did not dispute its correctness, or that it ought to have been a part of the constitution. But the question was, whether they had a right by a legislative act, to prejudice any other branch of the Government. They were not in his opinion warranted in travelling out of their own sphere to remove existing evils. There was but one way in which the constitution provided for the removal of a public officer. It says “the President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Here was the true and only sphere in which the House could move. If the constitution did not give the right of removal in any other way, it did not exist; and if they undertook by a legislative act to remove a man constitutionally appointed, who would pretend to say what mischief might not result from it? For these reasons he should vote against the bill.

Mr. QUINCY said it appeared to him that one of the arguments urged by gentlemen against this bill was fallacious--that which considered it an invasion of the rights of the Executive. This argument went on the assumption that the President would necessarily sign the bill sent to him, which might or might not be the fact. If he accedes to it, the argument of gentlemen falls to the ground; and if it shall be returned, it will then be time enough to discuss the constitutional principle. With regard to the general expediency of passing such a bill, the strongest arguments would be found in favor of it on the page of history. If history proved any thing, it was that the condition of those was most degraded who lived under the colonial governments of Republics. This was amply proved by the annals of the Carthaginian and Roman Republics. The territory under contemplation was a kind of colonial government, and might in the course of time be a powerful engine in the hands of the Executive. He wished, therefore, for a separation of the civil and military powers which might arise under it.

Mr. SMILIE said if the question was what was most convenient or best, he should have no difficulty in agreeing with the gentleman from Massachusetts. But it rested on higher ground--on what was constitutional. If he had a right to make the constitution, he would have no hesitation in separating the civil and military powers. But he could not forget the occurrences which had taken place in the State he had the honor to represent in part. In that State there had been but a single branch of the Legislature without any Executive veto on the passage of the laws. He had seen that Government destroyed by sweeping away the Executive power before the irresistible authority of the Legislature, and he had seen the people obliged, from this circumstance, to give up that constitution and frame a new one. The measure under consideration was of the same kind. The constitutional powers of the Executive ought not to be encroached upon, unless the object was to produce confusion. He had seen the effects of such measures, and deprecated them. You may, said Mr. S., abolish the office, and the officer falls with it; but in no other way, while the office continues, can you remove the officer except by impeachment. Shall we, then, in order to get rid of a man who may not have done right (and as for myself I am ready to answer I have no affection for the man) go into a new scene, the length of which we cannot foresee? This principle once established may lead to any thing; it may lead to a destruction of the powers of the Executive altogether. I am as tenacious of the powers of the Legislature as any man, but I believe the powers of the Executive to be equally necessary. Indeed, I think there is more danger to be apprehended from the overwhelming power of the Legislature, than from the powers of the Executive. For the Legislature is so powerful that there can be little danger of the Executive encroaching upon it.

Mr. EPPES.--If I took the same view of the operation of this law with the gentleman from Pennsylvania, I should certainly give it my negative. As, however, I voted for the resolution on which it is founded, and consider the law in conformity with the resolution, I will assign, in a few words, the reasons which will govern my vote.

We have been told that all the departments of Government are independent of each other. No man denies the correctness of this principle. Let us not interfere with the constitutional rights of the other departments, nor abandon our own. The Executive has by the constitution the right of nominating for office any citizen of the United States, whether an officer of the Army and Navy, or not. This being a constitutional right, he certainly cannot be deprived of it by law; the right remains, and may be exercised if the law passes; the law merely severs the civil and military offices, and leaves the military officer to decide whether he will vacate his military command by holding or accepting a civil office; the Executive will have the same right to appoint--the individual will have the same right to accept the civil office as heretofore, but the acceptance vacates his command in the Army or Navy. If, then, the Executive right to appoint, and the right of the officer to accept, remains after the passage of this law, how can gentlemen contend that the constitutional right of appointment is narrowed? All the difficulty on the present occasion arises from the law being made to bear on the constitutional right of appointment. It is intended to operate only on offices in the Army or Navy which are created by law, to the tenure of which we may annex such conditions as the public good may require. Under the constitution we have a right to prescribe rules for the government of the Army or Navy. In passing this law we add a new clause to the articles of war, viz: That an officer of the Army or Navy shall not hold or accept a civil office. Do gentlemen really suppose that we have no right to make this rule? If we can say that an officer shall not get drunk, that he shall have short hair, a coat of a certain form; that he shall not absent himself from his duty; or if we can in fact annex any other condition calculated to ensure to the public his services, why may we not declare by law that he shall not hold or accept a civil office, he shall forfeit his military command? The public welfare is the basis of the rules for the government of the Army and Navy; we have a right to prescribe such rules as the public good requires, and it is our duty to establish such as will ensure to us the services of our military officers in that station to which they are appointed.

But we are told we are about to remove from office a civil officer by law. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has read the clause of the constitution which provides for the removal of civil officers by impeachment. This law is not to operate on civil but on military officers; civil officers, it is true, are removed by impeachment--military officers by such forms as we think proper to prescribe by law; the operation of this law will be precisely the same with any other new rule prescribed for the government of the Army or Navy. Suppose we were to pass a law that any officer found drunk after the 1st of July next shall forfeit his office--his having been drunk before would not subject him to the penalty of the law--but his being drunk after the first of July next would deprive him of his office. Apply this to the case of a civil officer. An officer of the Army or Navy having accepted a civil office, or holding a civil office, does not at present vacate his military office; the reason is obvious--there is no law against it. If, however, after the first of July next, he accepts or continues to hold a civil office, he forfeits his military command under the new article of war which this law establishes. The law severs the two offices, declares them incompatible with each other, and leaves the individual free to make his election. As to the general principle that the civil and military ought to be separate and distinct, I have no doubt. If the principle is correct, the law ought to extend to all cases, not only such as may hereafter arise, but to those which at present exist.

Mr. STANFORD supported, and Messrs. FINDLAY and SLOAN opposed the bill; when the question was taken by yeas and nays on the passage of the bill--yeas 64, nays 34, as follows:

YEAS.--Willis Alston, Isaac Anderson, Burwell Bassett, George
M. Bedinger, Silas Betton, John Blake, jr., Thomas Blount,
William Butler, Levi Casey, John Claiborne, Christopher
Clark, Joseph Clay, Matthew Clay, John Dawson, Elias Earle,
Peter Early, James Elliot, Caleb Ellis, William Ely, John W.
Eppes, James M. Garnett, Peterson Goodwyn, Edwin Gray, Seth
Hastings, David Holmes, John G. Jackson, Walter Jones, Michael
Leib, Matthew Lyon, Duncan McFarland, Robert Marion, Josiah
Masters, Nicholas R. Moore, Thomas Moore, Jeremiah Morrow, John
Morrow, Gurdon S. Mumford, Thomas Newton, jr., Gideon Olin,
Josiah Quincy, John Randolph, Thomas M. Randolph, John Rea of
Pennsylvania, Jacob Richards, Thomas Sammons, Thomas Sanford,
Martin G. Schuneman, John Cotton Smith, John Smith, Samuel
Smith, Thomas Spalding, Richard Stanford, Lewis B. Sturges,
Samuel Taggart, Benjamin Tallmadge, Philip R. Thompson, Thomas
W. Thompson, Uri Tracy, Abram Trigg, Robert Whitehill, David R.
Williams, Alexander Wilson, Richard Wynn, and Joseph Winston.

NAYS.--David Bard, Joseph Barker, Barnabas Bidwell, John
Chandler, Jacob Crowninshield, Richard Cutts, Ezra Darby,
Ebenezer Elmer, William Findlay, John Fowler, Andrew Gregg,
Isaiah L. Green, James Kelly, William McCreery, Jeremiah
Nelson, Timothy Pitkin, jr., John Pugh, John Rea of Tennessee,
John Russell, Peter Sailly, Ebenezer Seaver, James Sloan, John
Smilie, Henry Southard, Joseph Stanton, David Thomas, Philip
Van Cortlandt, Killian K. Van Rensselaer, Joseph B. Varnum,
Peleg Wadsworth, John Whitehill, Eliphalet Wickes, Marmaduke
Williams, and Nathan Williams.

SATURDAY, April 12.

_Naval Appropriations._

The bill making appropriations for the support of the Navy was read the third time.

Mr. J. C. SMITH moved to recommit it, for the purpose of restoring the provision for completing the marine barracks at the city of Washington, the amount of expense attending which, he understood, had been already partly expended.

The motion to recommit the bill having obtained--yeas 54--the House went into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. J. C. SMITH in the Chair.

Mr. J. CLAY observed, that since the House had agreed to strike out the provision for completing the barracks, he had understood that more money had been applied to this purpose than had been appropriated, and that it had been drawn from the private funds of one of the officers, under an understanding with the Head of the Department. He, therefore, moved to restore the item “for completing the marine barracks at the city of Washington, three thousand five hundred dollars.”

Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS said he should not make any objection to this motion. He would only call the attention of the House to the regard they had heretofore manifested to specific appropriations, under the hope that something would be done to circumscribe contingencies. He believed that this particular sum had been expended much to the interest of the country.

Mr. LEIB said, he was not very fond of making appropriations in this way--for particular officers to run into unauthorized expenditures, and then to call on Congress to make good the deficiency. Is this a provision for completing the house for the commandant? Is that the marine barracks? If not, then under what appropriation is it made? Is it under that of contingencies? Look at the buildings at the navy yard; is all this expense incurred out of the contingent fund? If it is not, it is not authorized by law. Mr. L. said, he did not know that he should make any objection to this item; but he thought it full time to check this loose mode of procedure.

The question was then put, and the motion of Mr. J. CLAY was agreed to without a division.

Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS said, he wished so to modify that part of the bill which appropriated four hundred and eleven thousand nine hundred and fifty dollars “for repair of vessels, store rent, pay of armorers, freight, and other contingent expenses,” as to separate the items; to give the Department all it asked, but fix a particular sum to each item.

Mr. CONRAD opposed the motion, and remarked that the expenditure under one item might fall short of the sum appropriated, which would require that the deficiency should be made up from the surplus of another.

Mr. DANA said this amendment was warranted by the former usage of the House, and the message of the President of the United States. At the first session of the seventh Congress the President had observed that--

“In our care, too, of the public contributions intrusted to our
direction, it would be prudent to multiply barriers against
their dissipation, by appropriating specific sums to every
specific purpose susceptible of definition; by disallowing
all applications of money, varying from the appropriation
in object, or transcending it in amount; by reducing the
undefined field of contingencies, and thereby circumscribing
discretionary powers over money.”

This opinion had been given five years ago; and they might now infer that it had been found that it could not be carried into effect, as to the military or naval service. Mr. D. said he considered the gentleman from South Carolina as bringing up this question directly before the House: Will you adhere to specific appropriations, or will you abandon them? Mr. D. said he had never been in favor of them in relation to the Navy or Army.

The question was then taken on the motion of Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS, which was disagreed to--yeas 32, nays 51--when the committee rose, and reported the bill, which was passed without a division.

MONDAY, April 14.

_Duty on Salt._

Mr. J. RANDOLPH said he was about to call the attention of the House to a subject which he should not have probably brought into view, but for the change wrought in the state of the revenue, in consequence of the peace with Tripoli. Among the different articles from which moneys were drawn, there was none so heavily burdened as salt; and it would be recollected that it was one of the necessaries of life, and an article, the free use and consumption of which was of material importance to the agriculture of the country. Two acts had been passed laying a duty on this article. It was no new thing to wish--it was, indeed, extremely desirable to diminish, if not to take off this duty, and for that purpose he submitted the following resolution:

_Resolved_, That the Committee of Ways and Means be instructed
to inquire into the expediency of repealing so much of any act
as lays a duty on salt; and to report such provision as may, in
their opinion, be calculated to meet the deficiency occasioned
by that repeal.

Mr. THOMAS said the Committee of Ways and Means, of which the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. J. RANDOLPH,) who has made the motion, was and still is Chairman, were instructed by this House in the early part of last session, on a motion which he had the honor then to submit, to inquire into the expediency of reducing the duty on salt, and, if he recollected right, they were directed to report by bill, or otherwise; but, from some cause or other, to him unknown, that committee had never yet made any report on that subject. Courtesy might induce him to impute this neglect to the multiplicity of business put into the hands of the members of that committee.

He, Mr. T., always considered the duty on this article too high, and falling particularly heavy on the agricultural part of the community. It was now, and always had been his wish, to reduce it as soon as our revenue would permit, if consistent with the provisions made for paying off our national debt, and meeting the other exigencies of Government. For his part, he was at a loss, however, to discover that the present situation of our revenue, and the calls on Government for expenditure, together with the present aspect of our foreign relations, warranted this measure more now than last year. It was true that the war with the Barbary Powers up the Mediterranean had ceased, but it was also true, that the two and a half per cent. additional duty on goods paying _ad valorem_ duties has likewise ceased with the peace concluded with Tripoli. This duty was laid for the support of, and was more than adequate to the expense of that war.

Mr. J. RANDOLPH said he certainly did not deny the existence of such a resolution. He had only observed that he did not recollect having received it from the Clerk.

The Clerk read the resolution offered last session by Mr. THOMAS, on the 7th of December, 1804, which was such as he had stated, and which appeared to have received the sanction of the House.

Mr. ALSTON then moved that the resolution should be referred to a Committee of the Whole, which, after a few words in opposition by Mr. LEIB, was disagreed to--yeas 22; when the original motion obtained without a division.

WEDNESDAY, April 16.

_Duties on Salt._

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the bill repealing the acts laying duties on salt, and continuing in force for a certain time the first section of the act, entitled “An act further to protect the commerce and seamen of the United States against the Barbary Powers,” as follows:

SEC. 1. _Be it enacted, &c._, That from and after the ---- day
of ---- next, so much of any act, or acts, as lays a duty on
imported salt, be, and the same hereby is, repealed, and from
and after the day aforesaid, salt shall be imported into the
United States free of duty.

SEC. 2. _And be it further enacted_, That, from and after the
first day of January next, so much of any act, or acts, as
allows a bounty on exported salt provisions, and pickled fish,
in lieu of drawback of the duties on the salt employed in
curing the same, and so much of any act, or acts, as makes an
allowance to the owners and crews of fishing vessels, in lieu
of drawback of the duties paid on the salt used by the same,
shall be, and the same hereby is, repealed.[40]

SEC. 3. _And be it further enacted_, That so much of the act,
passed on the 25th day of March, 1804, entitled An act further
to protect the commerce and seamen of the United States against
the Barbary Powers, as is contained in the first section of the
said act, be, and the same hereby is, continued in force until
the end of the next session of Congress, and no longer.

Mr. QUINCY moved so to amend the first section as to repeal the act laying a duty on salt, additional to that originally imposed, so as to take off at present the duty of eight cents a bushel. He said he was of the opinion that taking off the whole duty on salt would have an injurious effect. A difference of twenty cents on the bushel would operate very seriously on those who had already made shipments. It was part of the duty of a legislator to avoid making such sudden changes as tended to destroy the confidence of the mercantile world in the stability of the laws. Whenever changes were made, they ought, in his opinion, to be gradual. Although he considered the general effect of this measure most important, yet, by too sudden an operation, it might affect a respectable class of individuals very injuriously. He would state the effect which he apprehended it would have. Suppose the repeal should take effect on the first day of July. A cargo of salt generally averages about four thousand bushels; the prime cost at Liverpool was about eleven cents a bushel. The cost of the cargo would, therefore, be only $440; the duty would amount to $800; the freight, &c., to about $1,000; making an aggregate of $2,240, which would be the cost in this country, on a mercantile calculation, supposing the present duties to remain in force. The present price of salt in this country was about fifty-three cents a bushel, which would produce something less than $2,240. The reason of the sum for which it is sold being less than that it costs is, that salt is merely made use of, in most cases, as a return cargo. Taking off the duty of twenty cents, would reduce the price to thirty-three cents a bushel, which would detract $920 from the value of the cargo, and would be more than double the prime cost of the salt. To so great a reduction, so suddenly made, Mr. QUINCY said he objected. He had, he said, another reason for being against the section as it stood. The duty on salt was among the duties pledged for the payment of the national debt. At the time this pledge was made, the duty was twelve cents. The additional duty of eight cents was afterwards imposed. His object was, to reduce the existing duty eight cents, and to let the original duty of twelve cents stand, at least, until some notice had been given to the mercantile world. He believed that a reduction of the duty was highly desirable, and would be very popular. He might not, perhaps, object to an entire repeal if time were allowed him to consult his constituents, some of whom might possibly be ruined by it. All things considered, he thought it would be best to reduce the duty at present eight cents. This would leave Congress at liberty, at their next session, to take the entire repeal into consideration, which might be done in case they considered it eligible.

Mr. J. RANDOLPH said he should prefer the taking off eight cents, rather than suffering the duty to remain as it stood at present; but he hoped the whole duty would be taken off. One of the objections of the gentleman to taking off the whole duty was, that the merchants who have imported salt may be injured by it, and will not be able to compete with those who have imported it duty free. But this argument operated two ways. Did it not apply differently when the duty on salt was first laid? At that time, the very man who now loses, gained in a correspondent ratio. To his mind, Mr. R. said, it was the strangest reason on earth, if this nation were in a situation to give up all its taxes, that it should be said by any gentleman, don’t repeal the laws imposing them, because my constituents, the merchants, have paid duties on some of them. If so, your taxes, so far from being diminished, may go on increasing _ad infinitum_. But, the truth is, we have the same right now to take off the duty on salt as our predecessors had to lay it on.

But it seems that the original duty of twelve cents was put into pledge for the payment of the national debt. We were told the same thing five years ago when we proposed to repeal the internal taxes. They were, however, repealed without any violation of the public faith, and wherefore? The nation has contracted a debt to the public creditor, and so long as the Government finds funds wherewith to pay it, the public creditor has no right to ask whether we take it from our coat or breeches pocket? whether from a land tax, an excise, or from duties on imported articles? The pledge on our side is, to find money. If, after the repeal of this duty, the ways and means for the payment of this debt are found deficient, I agree that we are bound to make good the deficiency. But what do we propose? The amount of the duty on salt is less than $600,000, and at the same time that we take this off, we impose a duty which will produce a million. We take off a duty on a necessary of life, which falls peculiarly heavy on the poor, and on agriculture, and lay an _ad valorem_ duty on gauze, catgut, and the Lord knows what, which produces from three to five thousand dollars more.

Mr. QUINCY asked whether a duty which produced $850,000 a year, which was limited to the end of the next session, and which was not pledged to the payment of the national debt, could be considered as equivalent to a permanent duty of half a million, imposed by an act which could not be repealed until the debt was paid? He did not think the new tax was a substitute of equal value, and he considered it one of the objects of this bill to get rid of the pledge to pay the debt.

Mr. J. CLAY felt disposed to give every credit to gentlemen in their professions of regard towards the public debt. The answer to the objection was this: A certain fund, arising from the impost, was pledged to the payment and interest of the debt. An act had passed the last Congress increasing the fund appropriated for this purpose, from $7,200,000 to $8,000,000. If the duty on salt was not a component part of this sum, the objection of gentlemen was futile. Now it was a fact, that, so much as this sum was diminished by taking off the $520,000 arising from the duty on salt, so much was it increased by the other duty proposed to be laid by this act. So long as the taxes pledged exceeded eight millions, the Government sacredly regard their engagements. As an answer to all the sensibility displayed by gentlemen for the public faith, permit me, said Mr. C., to refer them to a resolution proposed in the seventh Congress, on the 25th of January, 1802, instructing the Committee of Ways and Means to inquire into the expediency of taking off, or reducing, the duty on brown sugar, coffee, and bohea tea. Another objection urged by gentlemen is, the effect of this bill on the merchants. There is no doubt that, in consequence of it, the price of salt will fall; but, would not this have been the effect on bohea tea, had their measure been successful? The effect, however, will be gradual, and there will be but little loss sustained by any one individual, as the price will begin to fall immediately on taking off the duty. I believe it is not a material error to say, that the traffic is pretty much in the hands of those men who enjoyed it when the duty was laid; and if so, those who now lose, will only lose as much as they before gained. I hope the blank in the bill will be so filled as to give six months notice of the imposition of the duty.

Mr. DANA said, that if gentlemen were disposed to diminish the revenue, to screw up the Government, and if they were satisfied the Administration could get along without this tax, it would weigh much in his mind in favor of repeal; and, as they were disposed to grapple with difficulties and gain popularity, he believed he would gratify them by voting for the bill.

Mr. QUINCY said he opposed such an excessive reduction of this duty at once, not only on the grounds he had stated, but on other grounds. In Massachusetts, in the neighborhood of Boston, very extensive manufactories of salt had been established, under the idea that the duty would be continued. The immediate effect of this measure might be to destroy and ruin them.

Mr. QUINCY’s motion to amend the section was likewise disagreed to without a division.

On motion of Mr. J. RANDOLPH, the blank, relative to the time when the duty was to take effect, was filled with the first day of October.

The third section was then read, which continued the Mediterranean fund till the next session of Congress.

Mr. ALSTON observed that, from the present appearance of things, he did not think it advisable that this section should remain as it was, as in six or eight months they would have again the same ground to travel over. His object was permanently to substitute the Mediterranean fund for the salt tax. He had no objection to make the exchange; to take off the perpetual tax on salt, and lay it on these articles. He thought there was no danger in trusting to the wisdom of Congress the discontinuance of the act imposing them; and that as long as there was a necessity for taxes, these subjects of taxation were as unexceptionable as any that could be laid. When they were about to strike so deeply at the revenue, they ought to be certain that the substitute offered would justify the measure. For these reasons he submitted a motion to make the Mediterranean fund perpetual. He thought this expedient, as the tax on salt was perpetual, and the substituted tax was not so certain as that on salt. With regard to the one, very little variation could take place; while the other might materially change with the times.

Mr. CROWNINSHIELD then moved to amend the last section, so as to continue the Mediterranean fund for three years.

Mr. J. RANDOLPH hoped the amendment would not be agreed to. It would be remembered that the right of giving the public money was the sole exclusive right of that branch of the Legislature; and that when they made grants for a long term of years, it would not depend on them alone whether they should be revoked. In his opinion, if the Constitution of the United States was practised on its true principles, that House ought not to give the public money out of its control. There was no existing cause for continuing this fund for three years, or for a longer period than that contemplated by the bill.

The question was then taken on Mr. CROWNINSHIELD’s motion, which was disagreed to--ayes 28. When the question was taken on engrossing the bill, which was carried--ayes 83.

THURSDAY, April 17.

_Duties on Salt._

The bill repealing the acts laying duties on salt, and continuing in force, for a further time, the first section of the act, entitled “An act further to protect the commerce and seamen of the United States against the Barbary Powers,” was read a third time.

Mr. MASTERS moved to recommit the bill, for the purpose of modifying its details.

Mr. QUINCY supported the motion; which was lost--ayes 37, nays 49.

When the yeas and nays were taken on the passage of the bill--yeas 43, nays 11, as follows:

YEAS.--Evan Alexander, Willis Alston, jun., Isaac Anderson,
Burwell Bassett, George M. Bedinger, John Blake, junior,
Thomas Blount, Robert Brown, Levi Casey, John Chandler, John
Claiborne, Christopher Clark, Joseph Clay, Matthew Clay, John
Clopton, Jacob Crowninshield, Richard Cutts, Samuel W. Dana,
Ezra Darby, John Davenport, junior, John Dawson, Elias Earle,
Peter Early, James Elliot, Caleb Ellis, Ebenezer Elmer, William
Ely, John W. Eppes, James Fisk, James M. Garnett, Charles
Goldsborough, Peterson Goodwyn, Edwin Gray, Andrew Gregg, Silas
Halsey, John Hamilton, David Holmes, David Hough, John G.
Jackson, John Lambert, Joseph Lewis, junior, Patrick Magruder,
Robert Marion, Thomas Moore, Jeremiah Morrow, John Morrow,
Jonathan O. Mosely, Jeremiah Nelson, Roger Nelson, Thomas
Newton, junior, Gideon Olin, Timothy Pitkin, junior, John Pugh,
Josiah Quincy, John Randolph, Thomas M. Randolph, John Rea of
Pennsylvania, Jacob Richards, Thomas Sammons, Thomas Sanford,
Martin G. Schuneman, James Sloan, John Smilie, John Smith,
Samuel Smith, Henry Southard, Richard Stanford, Joseph Stanton,
Samuel Taggart, Benjamin Tallmadge, Samuel Tenney, David
Thomas, Philip R. Thompson, Thomas W. Thompson, Abram Trigg,
Killian K. Van Rensselaer, Joseph B. Varnum, Peleg Wadsworth,
Robert Whitehill, David R. Williams, Marmaduke Williams,
Alexander Wilson, Richard Wynn, and Joseph Winston.

NAYS.--Joseph Barker, John Fowler, Isaiah L. Green, Michael
Leib, Matthew Lyon, Josiah Masters, William McCreery, Nicholas
R. Moore, John Russell, Peter Sailly, and Uri Tracy.

FRIDAY, April 18.

_William Eaton._

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the bill authorizing the settlement of accounts between the United States and William Eaton. No amendment having been made to the bill, the House proceeded to consider the said bill at the Clerk’s table, and the same being again read, in the words following, to wit:

_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States in Congress assembled_, That the proper
accounting officers be, and they hereby are, authorized and
directed to liquidate and settle the accounts subsisting
between the United States and William Eaton, late Consul at
Tunis, upon just and equitable principles, under the direction
of the Secretary of State.

A motion was made by Mr. JOHN RANDOLPH, and the question being put, to amend the said bill, by striking out, at the end thereof, the words “under the direction of the Secretary of State;” it passed in the negative--yeas 43, nays 48.

_Ordered_, That the said bill be engrossed, and read the third time on Monday next.

MONDAY, April 21.

_Duties on Salt._

The House took up the amendments of the Senate to the bill repealing the acts laying duties on salt, and continuing in force for a further time, the first section of the act, entitled “An act further to protect the commerce and seamen of the United States against the Barbary Powers.”

These amendments proposed striking out all the provisions of the bill relative to the repeal of the duty on salt.