FEB. 26, 1834.] The Public Deposites. [H. OF R. before the Senate for such an act of mal-administration; tlemen, in this comprehensive sense of the word executive, for I contend that the wanton removal of meritorious offi- to draw any material distinction between the executive cers would subject him to impeachment and removal from character of the Clerk of this House and the head of the his own high trust." Treasury Department. The one is intrusted with the How do these views accord with the arguments of gen-contingent funds of the House, and the other with the tlemen who now claim for the President what I under- funds of the Government; the one subject to the orders stand to mean the irresponsible power of removal? The of this House, and the other to the joint orders of both very authority (Mr. Madison) upon which gentlemen Houses. But who ever thought of the President, by virhave relied to strengthen their arguments tells them tue of his executive character, pretending to claim a conthat the wanton removal of a meritorious officer would trol over our Clerk, either in the presence or absence of subject the President to impeachment and removal from the House, merely because his duties are executive? No, his own high trust. How does this comport with the idea, sir; that clause in the constitution which declares "the again and again urged upon this House, that the Pres executive power shall be vested in a President of the ident's power to remove is absolute and unqualified-may United States of America," contains no grant of power. be exercised for any and every cause, however whimsical, We must look beyond this, into the constitution, to ascerwithout the assignment of a reason? tain what powers have been vested; and, besides these, I am constrained to acknowledge that gentlemen have he has no further claim to power, unless derived from the asserted here, for theory, what has proved but too true in law. From this sense of the word executive, it necessathe late practice of our Government. We have witness-rily follows that the President possesses no constitutional ed, in the course of the present administration, removal control over the financial officer of this confederacy, for after removal, in rapid succession, from the highest down the plain reason that none of his duties relate to any of to the lowest officer in the Government, without the the powers vested in the President by the constitution. shadow of a reason, except for the sake of reform. I am aware that it has been argued, with an air of triAt one time, all the heads of departments were hurled umph, that the judges of the United States courts, the from office with one fell swoop, yet was no cause assigned officers of each branch of the Legislature, and all such for this unusual, extraordinary exercise of power; not officers, whose appointments have been vested, by law, in even an inquiry was instituted. To think, therefore, of cor- the courts of law, or heads of departments, are constiturecting the abuse of this power by impeachment, is worse tional exceptions to the power of the President to control, than idle. The vast amount of Executive patronage is by appointments and removal, all the officers of the Govhis strong armor, that shields him, harmless, from every ernment. But where do gentlemen find this general assault that can be made. To hold a seat in Congress, power of the President, to which the particular cases just and to become a warm, devoted, zealous advocate of the enumerated are exceptions? It is not to be found amongst "powers that be," are, in these days of political degener- the express grants in the constitution; hence they are acy, the high roads to Executive favor. To question the obliged to resort to implication. I trust it has been satispropriety of the President's conduct, is to become at once factorily demonstrated that it cannot be fairly derived exposed to the rigid rules of proscription, the envenomed from the joint power of the President with the Senate to shafts of the thousands in office, and the bitter anathemas appoint to office. To fill and to vacate offices are two sepof the tens of thousands who are anxiously waiting at the arate and distinct powers, that may be exercised indefootstool of power for an occasion, by some act of partisan pendently of each other, and are thus exercised, in almost zeal, to enlist in the cause of the President, with the hope every instance, in the twenty-four Governments of the to merit the reward of office. These evils the President States comprising this confederacy. There is nothing in at one time (I believe before he came into power) saw, the federal constitution which places these two powers acknowledged, and deplored, as the evident symptoms of in the hands of one and the same person. The case, decay in the body politic that required an immediate therefore, of the judges of the United States courts, inremedy. Experience has taught us that it is in vain to stead of being a constitutional exception of the general look to impeachment as a cure for these maladies, or as a power of the President to control, by appointment and corrective of the most wanton and flagrant abuses of exe-removal, at pleasure, all the officers of the Government, cutive power. We are, therefore, without a remedy, is an exception to the single power of removal; while all unless it be found in the disposition and the power of the other cases mentioned are exceptions to the single Congress to limit, by law, the Executive discretion. That power of appointment. If I am asked in whom, or what there is nothing in the constitution to prevent the appli- department of Government, the power of removal from cation of this remedy in the case of the Secretary of the Treasury, I, for one, am as clearly of the opinion as I am that recent events have proved it to be necessary. office has been vested-it is sufficient for the purpose of my argument to answer, that it has not been vested by the constitution in the President. Therefore, to make good the argument, that the cases alluded to are constitutional exceptions to the general power of Executive control, gentlemen must find this general power somewhere in the constitution, or adopt the comprehensive meaning of “executive,” with all the evils and absurdities against which I have been contending. Hence, according to this sense of "executive," the President's right to control, by removal from office, all officers whose duties are executive, remains unimpaired, whether the appointments be made by himself, either or both branches of the Legislature, the courts of law, or heads of departments. Every reflecting mind must be convinced of the utter fallacy of principles which, if followed out, directly lead to such disastrous consequences. But gentlemen contend that we cannot take away from the President the sole power to remove, at pleasure, the Secretary of the Treasury, because he claims this power by virtue of the constitution, which declares that the "executive power shall be vested in the President of the United States." This argument, I grant, would be true, if executive means what some gentlemen have contended; that is, a general supervision, superintendence, direction, and control over all the officers of the Government, of every order, grade, or description. In this sense of the word, the President would have the indisputable right to control the judges of the United States courts, as well as the right, which I understand to be claimed for him in the other branch of the Legislature, [Mr. SHEPLEY,] "to direct the marshal in summoning a jury to try a great offend- The last ground upon which gentlemen rest the coner." According to this sense, the Clerk, the Sergeant-stitutional claim of the Executive to control the Treasury at-arms-in a word, all the officers of this House, whose Department is that clause in the constitution which enduties are neither judicial nor legislative, but executive, joins it on the President to "take care that the laws be would be subject to the President's control. I defy gen-faithfully executed." To what I humbly conceive to be H. OF R.] The Public Deposites. [FEB. 26, 1834. a mistaken conception of this clause of the constitution, concede to the President the constitutional right to conmay be traced almost every act of Executive usurpation trol the Departments of War, Navy, and State, agreeably of which we have complained. Instead of considering it to his own discretion, restricted alone by the constitution, in its true character, as a mere duty, subservient to the I would deny to him any such power over the Secretary laws, it has been construed and acted upon as a distinct of the Treasury. Over all the officers whose duties relate grant of power, clothing the Executive with an authority to subjects which belong by the constitution to either of above the laws. If this be the true construction, it is in the other two co-ordinate departments of the Governvain that we look to the Judiciary as an independent co-ment, he can claim no such right. For the power to call ordinate department of this Government in expounding forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, to supthe laws, or to the Legislature for the means and mode of press insurrections and repel invasions, the President is their execution. To faithfully execute the laws, consid- indebted, not to the constitution, but to the laws; and in ered as a power, necessarily implies not only the right of the exercise of this power he is not left to his own discrejudgment as to the meaning and intention of the laws, tion, but is absolutely bound by the express provision of but also the employment of all the means necessary and the laws. I place the President's power over the Secreproper to enforce that judgment. Acting upon this con-tary of the Treasury precisely upon the same footing struction, the Executive, in 1827, considered he had the with his power over the militia in time of peace. Both right, and was in duty bound, to send an armed force into these powers belong by the constitution to Congress; the heart of one of the oldest members of this confeder- and it is a matter entirely for their consideration, if any, acy, to compel her, at the point of the bayonet, to surren-how much, to whom, and under what restrictions, they der her rights of jurisdiction and sovereignty over a large may be delegated. For the President, therefore, to reand valuable portion of her soil. To the honor of the then move the head of the Treasury Department without the Executive, if he did not abandon, he waived his claim to authority of Congress, or for a purpose incompatible with this extraordinary construction of power, and peace and the laws giving him the authority, would be as flagrant a the sovereign rights of the State were preserved. Scarcely violation both of the laws and the constitution as if he had the present Chief Magistrate come into power, by were to order out the militia under the pretence of exethe suffrages of those whose fears for the rights of the cuting the laws of the Union, without any legal authority, States had been so recently awakened by the mere men- and for the secret though manifest purpose of enslaving aces of his predecessor, than they were again roused by the people. The very same authority whence the Presia thundering proclamation emanating from this same dent derives his power to remove the Secretary of the law-executing power-denouncing as treasonous the Treasury, binds him to act in strict obedience to the resolemn ordinances of the people of a State, passed in her quirements of the law. With these limitations on the lawsovereign character, and ordering their immediate revc-executing powers of the Executive, if rigidly adhered to, cation, as well as a repeal of the acts of her Legislature. our liberties are safe. Under this same specious pretext of taking care that the Let us now inquire what are the requisitions of the law laws be faithfully executed, we have seen the ministers respecting the Treasury Department, which both the Secof the laws and of public justice thrust aside, and the retary and the President are bound to observe. To Conarmy of the United States substituted as the ministers of gress the Secretary is indebted for the creation of his Executive displeasure. office, and, as the creature of their power, he is bound to In a time of profound peace, when no invasion threat-execute their will, and look to them for direction and inened, or combinations of lawless insurgents resisted struction in the performance of all his duties. His duties the execution of the laws, the arms of a hired soldiery are prescribed by the laws, and he is bound by the solemnwere turned upon the citizens of an independent State, ity of an oath to discharge them with fidelity. To his acting in obedience to her laws, to settle between the State care and management are committed the financial conand General Government a long disputed question of concerns of the Government, with the requirement that he stitutional right. To judge of the ordinances of the peo-report and give information, in person or in writing, to ple, and the acts of the Legislature of a free, sove- either branch of the Legislature, when required, respectreign, and independent State; to pronounce the sentence ing all matters appertaining to his trust. He is directed of treason, and order an armed force to execute that by Congress to place the public moneys in the Bank of sentence upon the whole of the people of the State act-the United States and branches thereof, unless he should ing in obedience to her laws, were done without the otherwise order and direct; in which case, he was immedicolor of authority, save this construction of the law-exe-ately to lay before Congress the reasons of such order or cuting duty of the Executive. It is true these high-hand-direction. The better to secure the faithful performance ed measures, at the modest request of the paternal Pres-of these duties, in addition to the oath of the Secretary, ident, have since been in some measure legalized by the President is armed with the power of removing him Congress, in the enactment of the force bill-an act which from office, while the constitution clothes the Legislature has already been recorded in blood, and threatens ere with the same power, by impeachment. Hence, the Preslong the entire subversion of our liberties. It is by vir-ident is only responsible that the Secretary faithfully pertue of this same construction that the President now claims form his duties according to the laws; and, however many the right to supervise and control the Treasury Depart- and great may be the evils resulting from this compliance ment. If, therefore, this law-executing duty be consid-with the laws, the Legislature is alone chargeable. ered as empowering the President to remove at pleasure Let us now inquire why the President removed the late the Secretary of the Treasury, then, sir, every act of the honorable Secretary Duane from the head of the Treasury present administration stands completely justified, as com- Department. Was it because he was indisposed, absent, patible with the constitution, without the sanction of the insane, or in any respect disqualified to discharge the imforce bill. It becomes us, and particularly those of us who portant duties of his trust? Was it because he neglected claim the name of State rights men, to pause before we em- his duties, or violated his solemn obligations to the authors brace a doctrine like this, which must lead to tyranny, and of his official existence, in departing from, or refusing to end in the most absolute despotism. obey, their orders or instructions? For a correct answer, read Mr. Duane's exposé and the President's memorable manifesto to his cabinet; and there you will find the true cause to be, that the late honorable Secretary dared to differ with the President in his judgment with regard to a matter intrusted to his discretion, subject alone to a revi In opposition to this doctrine, I contend that to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" confers no power, but is simply a duty; the power to perform which must be derived from the laws, or some other clause of the constitution. According to this view, while I would FEB. 26, 1834.] The Public Deposites. [H. of R. sion and correction by Congress. For this was he removed, ing committed such an important trust to his discretion. and another appointed whose opinions were previously If such a case were to occur under the existing laws, who known, and who was ready to act, and did act, in conform- would think of holding the President responsible, or the ity with the Executive will. Will any man pretend to Secretary of the Navy, the Attorney General, or the Postsay that this was a faithful execution of the law? master General, all of whom appear to have been conThe President, in his manifesto, does not pretend to sulted on the subject of the deposites, and some of whom deny the Secretary his legal right to judge for himself on are scarcely able to meet their own responsibilities? To the subject of the deposites; and it is in vain that he can make the President, or any one or all of those high funcpretend to claim the right to control that judgment, which tionaries, responsible for the conduct of the Treasurer, right belongs alone to Congress, as clearly reserved in the you must make his acts, by some means or other, their bank charter. Instead, therefore, of removing the Sec-acts; which, I humbly conceive, the law has not done. retary for this difference of opinion, it was the President's These are what I deem, with all due deference to the duty to have said to him, The law has made it your opinions of my State rights friends, to be common sense duty, for such reasons as you may deem good and suffi- rights, if they be not State rights. cient, to remove the public deposites; the free and inde- In applying the views I have taken of this subject to pendent exercise of your judgment, with regard to this the late conduct of the President, I feel no hesitation in matter, is all the law requires; to your unbiassed judg-coming to the conclusion that he has usurped an importment I am bound to yield: then will the laws have been ant power belonging to the Legislative Department of this faithfully executed, and I have discharged the important Government. In directing and controlling the Secretary trust confided to me by the power of removal. Such, of the Treasury in the exercise of a discretion committed sir, would have been a faithful compliance, not only with to him by Congress, the President has assumed to himself the letter of the law, but also with the plain manifest in-the power of the people, through their immediate repretention of the Legislature. This, sir, would have kept sentatives, over the public purse. To call this by the mild the public purse in the hands of the people's immediate name of an abuse of power, would be a betrayal of my representatives, where it had been wisely placed by the constitution. trust as one of the representatives. To dismiss from office an able and meritorious officer for some trifling party conIn this view I unfortunately differ with some of my State sideration, disconnected from the duties of his trust, might rights friends, who, while they deny to the President the be justly regarded an abuse of power; but to dismiss an right to compel an officer to do an act contrary to the able and faithful officer, for the purpose of acquiring a honest convictions of his duty, yet admit the right of re- power that belongs to another department of the Govmoval for the sake of a difference of opinion. I must ernment, and to exercise this newly acquired power confess that this denial and admission appear to me to be through the appointment of another, are daring acts of at open war with each other. To deny to the President the usurpation. That such were the views of the President right to do what they admit in the next breath he has the in dismissing from office the late honorable Secretary right to do, by every means in his power, appears to me, if Duane, and such both the views and effects of the ap not contradictory, at least an unmeaning restriction. The pointment of his successor, none can doubt who will but gentleman's argument seems to resolve itself into this: The examine the history of that transaction. After the PresPresident has no right to compel an officer to act against his ident had in vain attempted to persuade the late honorable will; yet, for a difference of opinion, he has the right to Secretary Duane, and that too by a powerful appeal to use all the means in his power to compel him. The truth of his interest, to act in a matter intrusted to his discretion this doctrine I will not controvert, when applied to the contrary to the honest convictions of his duty, he resolved officers of those departments that are strictly executive. to substitute his will for the legal discretion of the SecreThe great principle of responsibility for which Ames, tary, and act upon his own responsibility. In pursuance Madison, and others contended in 1789, and upon which of this settled resolve, and without the knowledge or conthe gentleman relies in support of this doctrine, I admit to be applicable to the Departments of War, Navy, and State. To execute the will of the President, all the officers of these departments, whatever may be their own private views or feelings, are bound by the express provision of the laws establishing these departments. Hence the responsibility of the officers of these departments to the President, and his responsibility as a unit to the people's representatives. sent of the Secretary, the President caused his will to be announced to the public, on the 20th September, in the official organ of the administration, as follows: "The deposites of public money will be changed from the Bank of the United States to the State banks as soon as the necessary arrangements can be made for that purpose; and that it is believed they can be completed in Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York, and Boston, in time to make the change by the 1st of October, and perhaps sooner, if circumstances should render an earlier action necessary on the part of Government.' But can gentlemen pretend that this same doctrine applies to the financial officer of this Government, who is not subject to the President's will, order, or direction, Indignant and astonished at this extraordinary assumpeither by the laws or the constitution? The principle of tion of power on the part of the President, the Secretary, responsibility, when applied to this officer, resolves itself on the 21st September, addressed him a letter, in which into this: the President is responsible that the Secretary he presented to his consideration the nature of his comperforms his duties according to the will, not of the Pres- mission, empowering and enjoining him to execute his ident, but of Congress, as prescribed by the laws; and, duty according to law; the solemn obligation of his oath when Congress has invested the Secretary with a discre- to execute the trust committed to him with fidelity; the tion, that he be permitted to exercise it upon his own re-discretion with which he was invested by Congress, in the sponsibility. Suppose the President should think the sixteenth section of the bank charter; the solemn pledge Secretary wrong in his judgment with regard to a matter of the President himself, in his letter on the 26th June, intrusted to his discretion, still the President has no right and repeated in his exposition on the 18th September, to interfere, because the power to inform, direct, control, not to interfere with the independent exercise of the disand correct his judgment belongs alone to Congress. cretion committed to him by the law over the subject of If, therefore, the Secretary, acting in strict and honest the deposites; the opinion of the House of Representacompliance with the laws, should happen to err against tives at the last session, that the public deposites were the advice and the opinions of the President and all his safe; and his own deliberate conviction of the want of cabinet, and the worst calamities should follow, the Le. sufficient reasons to justify the removal; and that the gislature could only complain against themselves for hav. measure, in the absence of sufficient reasons, would be a VOL. X.-176 H. OF R.] Indian Appropriation Bill. breach of public faith, and appear to the public as vindictive, arbitrary, and unjust. This frank avowal of an able and faithful officer, containing his reasons and opinions with regard to a matter he had the indisputable right to judge of, is deemed by the President an insult to his dignity, and unworthy of an answer. Instead of countermanding his lawless order, issued on the 20th September, and yielding to the discretion of the Secretary, in compliance with the law, the constitution, and his own solemn pledge not to interfere, he upbraids the Secretary for not basely betraying the confidence of the Legislature, by ignobly deserting his post; and, what is still more strange, makes the fidelity of this patriotic officer his excuse to dismiss him from office. Such high-handed measures as these may now be lauded as marks of a fearless, noble, and patriotic independence; but, when the excitement of the moment ceases, and the present party distractions have been forgotten, they will be recorded by the honest historian as deeds of daring usurpation. It has been truly said that the sword and the purse are now in the hands of the Executive. The worthy officer to whose guardian care had been committed the public treasure, has been forced from his high trust, for no other crime than the honest performance of his duty; and another appointed, whose first act is opposed to the known wishes of the people, and whose first communication to this House contains an express denial of the authority of the people's representatives. The first official act of the present Secretary was to remove the public deposites; while, in his first communication to the House, he declares his office to be "one of the executive departments of Government; and the manner in which its duties are to be exercised must be subject to the supervision of the officer to whom the constitution has confided the whole executive power, and has required to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." The President has now all the power necessary to constitute the most perfect despot. With the bloody bill in the one hand, to make war upon the States, under the pretext of executing the laws, and with the purse in the other, his will has become the measure of our liberties. The laws respecting our Treasury may be misconstrued by the President, with the best intentions, or set at bold defiance, with motives the most corrupt; yet our pliant Secretary must obey his bidding. In all things relating to the Treasury Department, the Secretary, according to his own doctrine, must square his conduct and his conscience by the will of this high law-executing officer. Were these views respecting the power of the President over the Treasury confined to the present head of that department, we might hope to see them speedily checked by a patriotic and republican Senate. But such is not the fact. Similar views appear to be entertained by a large and respectable number of this House. Some gentlemen have gone so far in their zeal for executive power, as to declare that "the Secretary of the Treasury is bound to act in compliance with the President's wishes; and, in refusing to do so, or resign, he would violate every principle of duty, of honor, and honesty." [FEB. 26, 1834. Such is the nature of that difference, that one or the other of them must be fundamentally wrong. But, if Mr. Taney be not in error, it is high time for us, who stand here as sentinels on the watch-tower of liberty, to undeceive a deluded people, by proclaiming to the world that, with all our fancied notions of freedom and independence, the President of these United States possesses more power over the sinews of the Government-the purse and the sword-than the King of Great Britain. Believing, however, that such is not the true character of our Government, I should prove recreant to my trust were I to sustain this act of the administration. To sanction the removal of the public deposites-considering it, as I do, an Executive measure-would be to establish by precedent an act of Executive usurpation. Therefore, I intend, in the first place, to vote for a restoration of the deposites to the Bank of the United States; and, afterwards, support any measure that may be proposed in this House, that I may deem consistent with the public faith, for their future removal and security. [Mr. C. spoke on several subsequent days, but was interrupted by the expiration of the hour. The whole is given entire above.] INDIAN APPROPRIATION BILL. The House proceeded to consider the bill making appropriations for the Indian Department for the year 1834. Mr. McKAY continued his remarks on this subject. Many abuses, he observed, had crept into this branch of the public service, and it was high time that a corrective should be applied. He moved that the bill should be recommitted to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. He was adverse to its reference to the Committee of Ways and Means, or to the Committee on Indian Affairs. One item, in particular, of this bill, he must beg to call the attention of the House to. It was the clause granting for the payment of blacksmiths, and for the supply of steel and iron, twenty-one thousand dollars. The chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means would see that this bill had been reported on account of treaty stipulations with the Indians; but he would also see, as it was within his knowledge, that another bill had been reported providing for the payment of the blacksmiths, and for the expense incurred on account of the iron and steel. He would further say, that it appeared twenty or thirty thousand dollars were to be paid, without authority, or the semblance of authority, of law. He called upon the gentleman at the head of the Committee of Ways and Means [Mr. POLK, of Tennessee] for information on the subject. He concluded by a repetition of his argument, and by a formal motion to recommit the bill to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. Mr. POLK said that it appeared to him that these various motions were out of place. If a reorganization of the Indian Department, and of the whole system bearing upon our Indian relations, should be thought necessary, let it be done upon some substantive proposition. The present bill comprised only the regular annual appropriation for blacksmiths and gunsmiths, under the treaty stipI know nothing, personally, of the honorable Secretary ulation. The amount of expenditure had been, in fact, Taney. I have understood, however, that he is a disciple diminished, except in one or two instances. When the of the ancient school of Alexander Hamilton; and, if so, other bill alluded to should come up, then it would be his present views and principles are perfectly consistent time to take it into consideration. He would go hand in with his political creed. That the love of place or power hand with that gentleman in any proper regulation of the had any influence in forming his written opinions respect- Indian system by law. The present bill certainly ought ing the public deposites, to suit the known disposition of to pass; and he hoped that the gentleman from North the President, I profess neither to know nor believe. This Carolina [Mr. McKAY] would postpone or withhold his is a matter I leave for those to judge who know him best. opposition until the other bill should be taken up. This But this I do know: that he and his immediate predecessor in office differ as widely in their views and principles respecting the duties of the Secretary of the Treasury, and the character of the department, as the east is from the west. bill provides for the payment of the Indian annuities, and for the supply to various Indian tribes of implements of husbandry and agriculture. He would join the gentle. man in his efforts to regulate and fix a proper system, if FEB. 26, 1834.] Indian Appropriation Bill. [H. OF R. alteration were necessary, and improvement could be Mr. McKAY explained, and reiterated his former statemade. The year was now far advanced, and it was ment, by reciting the clause of the bill appropriating the requisite, from many considerations, that the bill should sum of twenty-one thousand dollars for the expenses of not be arrested in its progress. iron, steel, coal, and blacksmiths. Mr. COULTER said it had been the custom always, Mr. McKINLEY further contended for the correctness and a salutary custom it was, that all bills disposing of of the appropriation contained in the biil. Nothing more the public money must pass through the Committee of was appropriated than had been appropriated before. If he the Whole on the state of the Union. The object was to thought any good could be done by the recommitment of give an opportunity of discussing the object and the the bill, he should be in favor of that step; but, in his mode of its disbursement. The money of the people was opinion, no good could result from it. He hoped the bill a sacred treasure reposed in the hands of their represent- would not be recommitted. atives, and the propriety and manner of its disbursement Mr. H. EVERETT made some remarks on the bill became a subject of general and serious deliberation. before the House. The reporter understood Mr. E. to Has this question received such a deliberate and atten- express himself as being in favor of the recommitment of tive consideration? No: it had not; and this, of itself, the bill. formed a sufficient reason for the recommitment. But if Mr. FILLMORE also briefly spoke in favor of the reany reason were wanting, it would be found in the fact, commitment. that the bill contained an appropriation similar to one in Mr. MERCER wished to thank the gentleman from another bill, emanating from the same committee. For North Carolina [Mr. McKAY] for his motion. He did not his part, he must repeat his wish for the examination of see why a motion to recommit should be considered as this subject in the Committee of the Whole. He did not any imputation on the chairman of a committee, or a comunderstand the gentleman at the head of the Committee mittee itself. The experience of eighteen years had of Ways and Means [Mr. POLK] as speaking of any law shown him (Mr. M.) that these annual bills were the which regulated our intercourse in this point with the most neglected of any portion of the business of that Indians. If such were not the case, how could they House. The notice of bringing them up was generally reconcile this appropriation with the appropriation in the the signal to gentlemen to dispose of their time in some ordinary mode of the service? Was there any law in more pleasant way. It was generally considered that respect to this elsewhere? And was the power to be they were laws which had passed before, and therefore vested in other hands? Was it because the War Depart-required no alteration. The evil of this custom was evi. ment employed others as their agents, that the House dent from what they had heard of the present bill. If he ought to pass upon the measure? He would not assume had rightly understood, one man had been paid nearly four this to be the light in which the case was to be viewed. hundred dollars for a few hours' service, and another had After some further remarks, he observed that the House been appointed as an interpreter who did not understand was indebted, and highly indebted, to the assiduity and a word of the language. He hoped the bill would be revigilance of the gentleman from North Carolina, [Mr. committed. MCKAY.] The two bills, containing each of them a similar appropriation, might, but for him, have passed the House, on account of the reliance on the accuracy of the Committee of Ways and Means. That gentleman deserved high credit for his conduct, and he (Mr. C.) was happy to avail himself of the present opportunity of contributing his humble meed of approbation. The bill, he repeated, ought to be recommitted to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union; and he must say he felt surprised at any opposition being made to the proposition. Mr. HAWES, of Kentucky, expressed his intention of offering some amendments to the bill. He believed the Indian Department of the Government to be the worst managed of all the others. He would not trust to the Committee of Ways and Means; for when any information was asked of the chairman of that committee, the answer, and the eternal answer, was, that the appropriation was less than heretofore; and with that the House was expected to be content. Mr. ASHLEY explained. Mr. WILLIAMS, of North Carolina, concurred with the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. MERCER,] as to the thanks due to his colleague for the attention he had paid to this subject. It had been customary for years past not to pay much attention to these appropriation bills. They were considered as existing laws, and therefore requiring no amendment. The gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. McKAY] had told them that he had paid attention to this subject. They had reason to think he had. He appeared to have information on the subject, which was in some degree peculiar. He had told them that there were some appropriations in this bill which ought not to be made; and he challenged the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means to give him the opportunity of proving the fact, that there was an appropriation of $1,000 for a purpose not authorized by law, and another appropriation of $20,000 for a purpose which was provided for in another bill. Should not the House investigate this matter? The gentleman from Alabama [Mr. MCKINLEY] had said that Mr. SEVIER addressed the House in favor of the bill. the bill contained no more than the other bills. AdmitHe said it was somewhat extraordinary that the House ting this, did it prove that, if wrong had existed, that was always had an Indian war on the occasion of every Indian any reason why it should longer exist? If the appropriabill. He believed the Indian Department to be the tions made in former bills were improper, were they, for purest and best conducted of all the others. He was not that reason, to be tolerated in this bill? Was it a suffiprepared to contradict what had been alleged by his cient reason why they should not recommit this bill? The honorable friend from Missouri, yesterday, [Mr. ASHLEY;] gentleman said that, if it was again committed, the whole but because one officer had neglected his duty, that was question would be again before the House, and that disnot a good ground for condemning the whole depart-cussion would ensue. Was this an adequate reason why ment. From his situation, he was enabled to speak from the bill should not be recommitted? Were they always facts; and, upon examination, it would be found that the to be deterred from doing their duty, because discussion whole Indian Department was well conducted; and, with would ensue? They were sent to that House to discuss, regard to the present bill, there was not an item in it not to talk, and sometimes to vote. Ile trusted the bill would provided for by stipulation. be recommitted. Mr. McKINLEY, of Alabama, defended the principles of the bill, and urged the inexpediency of entering upon an investigation in a Committee of the Whole, where it would be impossible to examine so many items. Mr. VINTON hoped that the bill would be recommitted, and this for the very purpose for which its recommittal had been deprecated-that they might have a full and free investigation into the whole subject of Indian expendi |