32D CONG.....3D SESS.

Mr. SMITH. I am a member of the Committee on Printing and was not aware that any action had been had upon the matter by the commmit

tee.

Mr. BORLAND. I did not consult the Senator, and I will state the reason why I did not. During this session he has not attended the meetings of the committee, but has left the business before it, so far as he is concerned, entirely to the Senator from Maine [Mr. HAMLIN] and myself. I did not mean any discourtesy to the Senator, but inasmuch as he did not give any attention to the business before us I supposed he did not care to take any part in our proceedings.

Mr. SMITH. I have no fault to find with the course pursued by the committee. The Senator is, however, entirely mistaken when he says that I have not attended any of the meetings of the committee. I object to considering the report at this time.

Mr. BORLAND. I have not had the pleasure of meeting the Senator at any of the meetings of the committee during this session.

The PRESIDENT. As the consideration of the report is objected to it goes over under the rule.

PATENT OFFICE BUILDING.

The following resolution, submitted by Mr. HOUSTON on the 31st ultimo, was considered and agreed to:

"Resolved, That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, instructed to furnish the Senate with a report of an examination, on the files of the Department of the Inte rior, made of the Patent Office Building in 1851, under the direction of the Commissioner of Public Buildings."

RINGGOLD'S CHARTS.

Mr. GWIN. Some days ago the Senate ordered one thousand copies of Captain Ringgold's charts to be purchased by the Secretary of the Senate for the use of navigators on the coast of California. The Secretary now desires to know how he is to distribute them, I therefore submit the following resolution:

Resolved, That of Captain Ringgold's charts of the coast of California heretofore ordered to be purchased, five hundred copies be sent to the Secretary of the Navy, and five hundred to the collector of San Francisco, for distribution.

Mr. BUTLER. I suppose that is as good a mode of distribution as any that can be adopted, but it is the first time that we have ever resorted to it.

Mr. HAMLIN. I would suggest to the Senator from California that a portion of the charts should be deposited here so that mariners can obtain them before reaching the coast, otherwise they may have difficulty in getting into port.

Mr. GWIN. The resolution provides that five hundred shall be deposited with the Secretary of the Navy for distribution.

Mr. HAMLIN. As they are for the benefit of merchant vessels they should be deposited with the Secretary of the Treasury.

Mr GWIN. I am perfectly willing that that shall be done.

Mr. BUTLER. How is the collector at San Francisco to distribute them? He has not the franking privilege.

Mr. GWIN. Navigators will obtain them from him when they enter the port.

Mr. BRIGHT. Why are not the charts to be distributed to Senators?

Mr. GWIN. For the following reason: It was objected to the original resolution in the form in which it was first introduced, that it conflicted with a provision in the deficiency bill of the last session of Congress, prohibiting the distribution of books to members of Congress. It was suggested by the colleague of the Senator, [Mr. PetTIT,] that the charts should be purchased for the benefit of navigators on the Pacific coast. That having been done, the Secretary of the Senate wants to know how he is to distribute them, and the resolution is introduced for the purpose of settling the mode of distribution.

Mr. BRIGHT. I made the inquiry for the purpose of showing the effect which an order of this kind, which is violative of the law, will produce. At the instance of the Senator from Virginia [Mr. HUNTER] an amendment was incorporated in the deficiency bill of the last session to the effect that there should be no further distribution of books amongst members of Congress.

Special Session-Ringgold's Charts.

Mr. HUNTER. The provision was in the bill as it came from the House.

Mr. BRIGHT. Whoever introduced it the intention was as I have stated. However, I have no disposition to interfere unnecessarily with this resolution. I opposed the resolution directing the purchase of the charts, at least I voted against it under the impression that if we had a general law of that kind it was wrong by a simple resolution to repeal or evade it. I think the passage of that resolution was an evasion of the law.

Mr. BAYARD called for the yeas and nays on the resolution and they were ordered.

Mr. MASON. I understand the object of the resolution is to direct the Secretary of the Senate to send five hundred copies of the charts for which the Senate has subscribed to the Secretary of the Treasury, and five hundred to the Collector at San Francisco for distribution in California, for the use of navigators. I was opposed to the resolution directing the purchase for the reason as has been well said that I did not think it was a legitimate use of the contingent fund of the Senate to purchase books for the use of navigators.

Mr. GWIN. I cannot imagine why the yeas and nays have been called for on such a resolution as this. The charts are very important publications and the Senate has twice after full discussion ordered the purchase of some of them. The resolution which we have now before us is merely a matter of form. It is asked for by the Secretary of the Senate in order that he may know how to distribute what have been deliberately ordered by the Senate. As to the charge of indirection in evading the law, I insist that the original resolution was nothing of the kind. It did not propose to purchase a "book." It was merely a chart of, a very important portion of the coast of the United States, and one which was drawn up with great care and accuracy. The Legislature of California has instructed its Senators unanimously to ask for its republication. The resolution ordering the purchase has been agreed to; and the proposition now is to determine how they are to be distributed. I do not know that it is a matter of any great importance, but certainly I am ready to meet any issue which may be presented as to the responsibility of evading the law for the purpose of purchasing and distributing the charts.

But

Mr. PETTIT. When the original resolution was introduced there seemed to be some difficulty in the minds of Senators in reference to the power of the Senate, in consequence of the law which has been spoken of, to order the purchase of the charts. Whatever construction other Senators may have put upon the law, I did not think that the charts came within the term "books." there seemed to be a great desire in the Senate-I could not mistake that-that the maps should be published for the benefit of navigators on the Pa cific coast, and therefore, to obviate the difficulty, I suggested to the Senator from California to make the resolution read so upon its face. It was evident that the design of the resolution was to benefit the navigators. If the maps, charts, or whatever you choose to call them, had been purchased they would have been distributed, as near as could be by Senators, to those who were going to the Pacific coast. I know what the result would have been. As soon as the resolution was passed boys would have been round our desks asking that Senators not living in that direction should transfer their proportion of them to the Senators from California-a thing which I, located as I am in the interior, should readily have done. The design was to distribute them to navigators on that coast, and I thought we might as well say so at once. therefore suggested to the Senator from California the modification, and he accepted it.

Now we have ordered the purchase. I am perfectly willing to vote to rescind the resolution ordering the purchase, if it is not necessary or proper to purchase the charts; but having made the order, unless we adopt this resolution or some other, the charts will lie here and become musty in the office of the Secretary. It seems to me, therefore, that some such resolution should be adopted. If five hundred are deposited with the Secretary of the Treasury or of the Navy, he will undoubtedly give them to the navigators as soon as convenient; and if the other five hundred are transmitted to the collector at San Francisco, he will furnish each

SENATE.

navigator with one when he enters the port. Having ordered the purchase of the maps, I do not see that there is any more proper way to dispose of them, inasmuch as Senators have not the power to distribute them. I would vote to reconsider the resolution which we have already adopted, and retrace our steps, if the Senate should be so disposed; otherwise I shall vote for the distribution.

Mr. BAYARD. I object to the resolution, because I cannot see upon what authority the contingent fund of the Senate of the United States is to be charged with the disbursement of moneys to be distributed among the collectors of the United States. You are setting a precedent now for which you can find no anterior one. You are setting a precedent which will necessarily lead to applications of a similar character from other parts of the Union. There is no reason why you should adopt such a resolution in favor of the mariners of one portion of the Union and not of the other, and if you are to pay for charts of the coast of California out of the contingent fund of the Senate, which have not been ordered by Congress, and distribute them through the medium of the collector of San Francisco, you must expect of course to distribute charts of other portions of our coast through other collectors. That is what this will lead to, and I would rather let the charts lie here and rot than sanction such a precedent.

Mr. STUART. I desire to say a few words on this subject, in order that there may be no misconstruction of the vote which I gave on the former resolution, and the one which I intend to give on this. I disagreed with many Senators upon the construction of the provision in the deficiency bill to which reference has been made. It was introduced into the House of Representatives by a gentleman from North Carolina for the object, and the sole object of preventing the annual distribution of books to members of Congress to constitute a library for themselves. The law is not properly susceptible of any other construction. It does not prohibit, in my judgment, either House of Congress from publishing a document for the purpose of distribution in the country through the medium of its members. That was the view I took of it when it was passed, and it is the view I take of it now. I wish, therefore, only to say that in supporting this resolution, I shall do it for the purpose of providing for the distribution of the charts without taxing the members of the Senate with the duty, and that it shall appear that I had no idea of evading the law in voting for the resolution the other day. I did not think the original resolution infringed the law at all, and hence had no difficulty in voting for it, and shall have no difficulty in voting for the resolution providing for the distribution of the charts.

Mr. CHASE. The law to which the Senator has referred, is in these words:

"Hereafter no books shall be distributed to members of Congress, except such as are ordered to be printed as public documents by the Congress of which they are members.'

No books shall be distributed unless they have been ordered as public documents. The word "books," as every lawyer knows, comprehends charts. If a court were called upon to put a legal interpretation upon this law, charts would most unquestionably be included. The question then resolves itself into this: has this work been ordered to be printed as a public document? It is known that it has never been so ordered. As I understand it, it has been printed at the private expense of the able and ingenious gentleman who compiled it. Heretofore, and before the passage of this law, the Senate ordered the purchase of a certain number of copies of the work. They were purchased, and distributed to Senators in the usual mode, and I think most of them took the direction suggested by the Senator from Indiana, [Mr. PETTIT] It was the direction very cheerfully given to mine.

I said, when this question was originally before us, that I might have no objection to voting for the resolution under the peculiar circumstances of the navigation of the Pacific coast, if the law did not stand directly in the way. I do not think that we can construe laws by the reported opinions and views of gentlemen who speak upon them. We must look at the recorded language of the laws themselves; and when we have obtained the construction from the language, we are bound by it. Inasmuch as the law, in my judgment, in

32D CONG.....3D Sess.

cluded such a work, it seemed to me to be a violation of it to pass the resolution ordering the purchase. It is true that the effect of the law was sought to be avoided by omitting the language contained in the law, "for distribution to members of Congress;" but that, it seems to me, rather made the matter worse than better, because it reduced the resolution to the character of an attempt to evade the law instead of founding it upon an honest difference of opinion in regard to its construction, such as exists between myself and the Senator from Michigan, [Mr. STUART.] For these reasons I was opposed to the original resolution, and I feel bound to vote against all resolutions intended to carry it into effect.

Mr. BORLAND. It seems to me that the Senator makes an objection to the present proposition that is not altogether applicable. He opposed the original resolution, he says, because he thought it was an evasion of the law which forbids the distribution of such things-books, charts, or whatever they may be-to members of Congress. Now, after that resolution has been adopted, and the arrangements have been made for the purchase of the charts, a proposition is made to distribute them-how? Not to members of Congress, but to put them at the disposal of certain officers of the Government; and the Senator opposes that. What will he do with them? This proposition shows now, if it was not shown before, that there was no intention to distribute them to members of Congress-that there was no intention to violate the law because that law forbids simply a distribution to members of Congress to prevent them voting themselves libraries. It was not intended to prohibit the purchase of such works for public purposes. The proposition is now to put the charts at the disposal of the proper Department of the Government for the use of navigators, the purpose for which they were ordered to be purchased.

The law which the Senator from Ohio has read if he will look to it again he will see, says nothing about purchase for public purposes. It simply prohibits a distribution to members of Congress. The resolution so far from going in contravention of the law carries out its very spirit. The resolution which we adopted the other day was to purchase these charts for the interests of navigation, and the object now is to indicate to the Secretary of the Senate what disposition he shall make of them in executing that resolution and thus we relieve him from embarrassment. As they are in his hands he must adopt some mode of disposing of them. This simply points out to him what the Senate considers the proper mode of distribution, viz: to put them at the disposition of officers of the Government and not of members of Congress. It does not come near the law and in no respect does it violate its spirit and intention.

Mr. MALLORY. The order for the purchase of the charts has already been made. That I conclude is a matter settled, and the only question now is as to their distribution. I suppose the Senate will desire them to take that direction which will confer the greatest amount of benefit on the interests of navigation. California I suppose herself has no vessel interested, but there is scarcely a part of the country having any shipping that has not sent one vessel or more to the ports of California. If the Senator from California had not already made his proposition, I would suggest to him that none of these charts should be sent to California for distribution; that they ought to be distributed on the Atlantic sea-board for navigators going to California, because it is to enable them to reach the port of California that the charts are wanted. I will suggest to the Senator from California not to give the five hundred to the Secretary of the Treasury because it is unheard of for the Secretary of the Treasury to distribute charts. The charts which are printed under an act of Congress are distributed by the chief of the Coast Survey office. He sends them to the Chambers of Commerce and other commercial institutions of the country which can best distribute them so as to confer the greatest amount of benefit upon the commercial interests. If it is in order I will move to strike out "Secretary of the Treasury" and insert "Chief of the Coast Survey."

Mr. RUSK. I see no difficulty in the way of this distribution being ordered. The law referred to by the Senator from Ohio is that hereafter no

Special Session-Ringgold's Charts.

books shall be distributed to members of Congress, and therefore, whether we call these charts "books" or not, the law does not apply to them. I think, however, that the Senator from California had better modify his resolution so as to direct that all the copies shall be turned over to the Secretary of the Treasury to be by him distributed. He, as a matter of course, is better informed of the wants of navigators than the collector. Mr. GWIN. I will modify my resolution accordingly.

The PRESIDENT. There is an amendment pending offered by the Senator from Florida. Mr. MALLORY. I withdraw it.

Mr. BAYARD. I supposed that if you are to make any order upon the subject, the Secretary of the Treasury will probably be the officer most likely to distribute them according to your intention; but my objection lies deeper than that. You are setting a precedent to the effect that out of the contingent fund of the Senate of the United States, you will order books to be paid for, for distribution by the Executive officers of the Government. Where is your authority for that. Mr. SHIELDS. I agree with the Senator that this is not a contingency that ought to be paid out of our contingent fund, but I understand that the maps are already engraved, the contract is made for them; and all that is necessary is to know how to distribute them.

Mr. BAYARD. I understand that, but I consider the principle more important than the mere question whether the books are to be paid for by a few. thousand dollars or not. I will never sanction an order of this kind for the distribution of books purchased under such circumstances, by money taken out of the contingent fund of the Senate, when Congress has not made an appropriation for the object. What did you decide yesterday in reference to the valuable report of Mr. Andrews? You decided almost unanimously that you had no authority to pay for it out of your contingent fund. Whence, then, comes your au thority to purchase books for distribution, not by Senators, but by the Secretary of the Treasury, or any other Executive officer? It is an evasion of the law. You must judge of the intent of all laws by the language used by the legislators who passed them; and if you take the language of this law, whatever may have been the private intentions of the members, there can be no question that it prevents the distribution of all books among members of Congress, except such as are printed as public documents. In consequence of that, you did not pass the resolution in the shape in which it was originally introduced providing for the purchase of the books out of the contingent fund of the Senate for the use of Senators. You seek now not only to evade the intent of the law which is to prevent such an abuse of the contingent fund of the Senate, but to introduce the precedent that the contingent fund of the Senate is to be used for the purpose of purchasing books, I care not what they are or what they are not, to be distributed by executive officers. Is that a proper mode of proceeding? Ought not legislation to be requisite for such a purpose? If so the proper course is this: If you have unadvisedly chosen to pass a resolution for the purchase of books, the question whether they are to lie for a few months among our other documents is of very little importance compared with the establishment of such a precedent as this. Let them remain under your former order if they have been purchased, or the engravings have been ordered, or any contracts made, and do what is right in principle. At the next session of Congress seek to pass a law authorizing action of this kind, and see whether on discussion the Congress of the United States will agree to depute to collectors and officers of that class the distribution of books purchased by means of the contingent fund of either House.

Mr. BORLAND. I will call the attention of the Senator from Delaware to this fact: the resolution ordering the purchase of the charts expressly provides that they shall be for the use of navigators on the Pacific coast. We have ordered their purchase. I presume the contract for them has already been made. They are perhaps ready to be delivered, and the only question is, whether we shall let them lie here in some lumber room to the

SENATE.

next session, or whether we shall put them in the hands of the Secretary of the Treasury for distribution among the navigators on the coast? That is the sole object of the resolution.

Mr. BAYARD. Precisely; and if I put the value of the charts against what I was going to say is an atrocity in principle, I might vote for the resolution. You can find no precedent for ordering books to be paid out of the contingent fund of the Senate for distribution in this mode. Show me the precedent, if any such exists. It seems to me the abuse is palpable. Answer me if you can, in consistence with the vote which you gave on the report of the Committee on Contingent Expenses, in reference to Mr. Andrew's report. Why did you refuse to pay the expenses in that case? Because it was not prudent for you to make such expenditures out of your contingent fund. If it was not proper in that case, on what principle do you make it proper here? If you have purchased the books improperly, let them lie until the next meeting of Congress without being distributed.

Mr. RUSK. The argument of the honorable Senator from Delaware would have been good against the passage of the resolution in the first instance; but I do not think by refusing to distribute the charts in their proper channels, that we should advance a single step the principle for which he seems to contend. I am not certain of the propriety of passing the original resolution, but when he says it is an atrocious principle, and one for which there is no precedent, I will merely say that if he had taken the trouble to look he would have found that there is nothing but precedents for it. The House of Representatives has paid out of its contingent fund large amounts for books to be distributed among its members, and the Senate has done the same thing.

Mr. BAYARD. For distribution to members, but not to executive officers. You are extending the principle.

Mr. BORLAND. Nothing is more common in making an order by either House to purchase books out of its contingent fund, than to give a portion of them to an executive department for distribution.

Mr. RUSK. Precisely. To remedy the evil, and to avoid the precedents set by both Houses, of paying out of the contingent fund for books to be distributed among their members, we passed a law. What is it? That neither House of Congress shall distribute amongst its members any books except documents printed by order of both Houses. This is not a book of that description. It is not proposed to be distributed amongst members of Congress, and therefore it is no violation of the law. The honorable Senator from Michigan was perfectly correct in what he said. The evil intended to be remedied by the law was the distribution of books among members of Congress. This is, therefore, not a violation of the law. At the same time, however, I have no doubt that it would have been altogether better if we had not undertaken to act separately, and paid for the purchase out of our contingent fund. But that is gone by. We have made the order, and the question is shall we turn round, and make the error three or four times worse by piling the document up here to the inconvenience of the Secretary of the Senate, and the damage of the navigating interest.

Mr. BAYARD. I presume the reason why there is no express restriction in the law as to the mode of distribution is, that it never entered into the imagination of Congress that such an attempt would be made. It had been the custom to purchase books by means of the contingent fund of either House of Congress and distribute them through the medium of its members. The law chose to restrict that in express terms. It did not go further, and restrict the abuse which was never contemplated, of purchasing books by means of the contingent fund, for distribution by the Executive authorities. Not supposing that such an authority would be assumed, it imposed no such restriction; therefore, my answer to the honorable Senator is, since you have passed such a resolution ordering the purchase of these documents, I am for letting them lie here in the hands of the Secretary of the Senate until he has the warrant of law for their distribution. I will not sanction one wrong resolution by voting for another.

32D CONG.....3D SESS.

The PRESIDENT. The resolution has been modified to read as follows:

Ordered, That the copies of Captain Ringgold's charts of the coast of California heretofore ordered to be purchased be delivered to the Secretary of the Treasury for distribution to the Navy and commercial marine navigating that

coast.

The yeas and nays were taken on the adoption of the order, and it was agreed to-yeas 21, nays 17; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Borland, Brodhead, Dodge of Wisconsin, Dodge of Iowa, Everett, Fitzpatrick, Foot, Gwin, Houston, Jones of Iowa, Mallory, Pettit, Rusk, Sebastian, Seward, Shields, Soulé, Stuart, Walker, Weller, and Wright-21.

NÄYS-Messrs. Atchison, Atherton, Bayard, Bright, Butler, Chase, Clayton, Douglas, Evans, Hunter, Mason, Norris, Pearce, Smith, Sumner, Thompson of Kentucky, and Toucey-17.

EXECUTIVE BUSINESS.

A message was received from the President of the United States, by SIDNEY WEBSTER, Esq., his Secretary, and on motion of Mr. GWIN, the Senate proceeded to the consideration of Executive business. After some time the doors were reopened.

VOTING BY MACHINERY.

Mr. HOUSTON submitted the following resolution:

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate be, and he hereby is, authorized and directed to contract with Henry Johnson, the inventor, for the construction in the Senate Chamber of his new mode of taking the yeas and nays: Provided, The entire cost of construction shall not exceed the sum of $1,500 to be paid out of the contingent fund of the Senate.

COMMERCIAL REGULATIONS.

Mr. HAMLIN. I submit the following resolution:

Resolved, That there be printed for the use of the Senate five thousand additional copies of the report of the Secre tary of State relating to the commercial regulations with foreign nations.

I ask the consideration of that resolution at this time. I will state very briefly what it is.

A SENATOR. Has it been reported from the Committee on Printing?

Mr. HAMLIN. It has the approbation of that committee. I had an interview with a late Secretary of State [Mr. Webster] on this subject at the last long session of Congress, the result of which was that during that session, on the 19th of July, I submitted a resolution calling upon the State Department to furnish the Senate with such information as it could, relating to the subjects named in the resolution. The report has been submitted to the Senate. It will form a little volume of about one hundred pages. It is a very valuable work, showing, as it does, the regulations of foreign commerce of almost every foreign nation. As the expense of printing it will be very little, and as the resolution meets the approbation of the Committee on Printing to which I have submitted it, I trust the Senate will adopt it.

The resolution was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to.

OPEN EXECUTIVE SESSIONS.

Mr. CHASE. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the resolution which I submitted yesterday in regard to Executive sessions. The motion was agreed to. The resolution is as follows:

"Resolved, That the sessions and all proceedings of the Senate shall be public and open, except when matters communicated in confidence by the President, shall be received and considered, and in such other cases as the Senate by resolution from time to time shall specially order; and so much of the 38th, 39th, and 40th rules as may be inconsistent with this resolution is hereby rescinded."

Mr. CHASE. I suppose every Senator understands the object of this resolution. With the permission of the Senate I will so far modify its terms as to make it take effect after the present session of Congress and submit it to a vote with a very few remarks.

It changes the existing rule to this extent: The present rule requires the consideration with closed doors of treaties and nominations, and all confidential communications of the President. The proposed amendment requires that all sessions and all proceedings of the Senate shall be open and public, except in such special cases as the President or Senate from time to time shall decide to be proper for secret consideration. The proposed change would substitute for the general

Special Session-Open Executive Sessions.

rule of secrecy in respect to several classes of subjects the general rule of publicity, with such exceptions as particular exigencies shall from time to time require.

As the rules now stand all treaties are considered in secret session, and so are all nominations, and all communications marked confidential.

Should the rules be altered as proposed by the resolution I have had the honor to submit, the injunction of secrecy will be confined to such treaties as may be specially communicated in confidence by the Executive and to such nominations as the Senate in the exercise of a sound discretion may deem it necessary, from considerations affecting private character or the public service, to discuss in privacy.

There is a large class of treaties legislative in their character, and including very important public considerations, which ought to be publicly debated. There is no reason why they should be considered in secret session. On the contrary, in respect to treaties of this character it is quite desirable that the public should be informed, and fully informed as to their provisions and as to the debates and votes here upon them. So also many, and indeed almost all, nominations are confirmed or rejected upon principles of public or party policy, without reference to private character. I see no reason why debates and votes upon these should not be public. Whenever any questions involving moral character are raised, it will be in the power of any committee or any member to move that the doors be closed.

There can then be no objection to the adoption of the resolution upon either of the grounds generally relied on by the advocates of secret sessions. Those grounds are, first, that secrecy is frequently necessary to the success of important negotiations with foreign countries, and that this secrecy would be impossible if the treaties should be debated and voted upon in public. There may be some force in this, but the objection does not touch the proposed amendment. The President has charge of foreign negotiations and is the best judge of the occasions on which secrecy is required, and whatever he thinks proper to communicate in confidence will still be treated as confidential, if the rule which I propose should be adopted.

The second ground of objection is that private character should not be made the subject of public debate. I will not say that this objection would not deserve consideration if the proposed rule imperatively required the public consideration of all nominations without exception. But it does not. It expressly excepts from its operation those special cases in which the Senate by resolution may enjoin secrecy. Such orders will be made when the nature of particular cases make such orders necessary or proper. In all other cases where the action of the Senate is determined by general or purely political considerations, the people have a right to know the character of our discussions and the reasons of our votes. Our institutions are based upon the principle of publicity and responsibility-secret sessions are exceptions to these general principles; these exceptions should be confined within the narrowest practicable limits, and reduced to the smallest possible number.

Mr. HUNTER. It seems to me that this proposes a very important change in our rules, and one which I fear would be very mischievous. As it now stands, the general rule is that when Executive communications are made in reference to treaties and nominations, our deliberations are to be in secret, unless we choose to order otherwise. If we do make the deliberations public, that is the exception. This proposes to reverse the rule, and require that all discussions shall be public unless the President or we, on account of special considerations, choose to make them secret. The result will be that we shall have no more secret sessions in relation to these matters. It involves a total change of the rule. It will lead to that result, because if, upon the question of a nomination, the Senate chooses to say that its consideration shall be secret, immediately it will be proclaimed to the world that the man has been accused, and he will desire to know of what he has been accused, and how he can defend himself.

So, too, in relation to treaties. If, contrary to the general rule, which this proposes, to consider them in public, we should go into secret session

SENATE.

upon a treaty, it would be supposed that there was something especially delicate in our foreign relations. From this, considerations might be derived affecting the supposed probability of peace or war, and also the credit, and it may be the stocks, of the country, and in order to prevent suspicion, we should be forced to go into open session, and consider in public what ought to be considered in private.

I do not believe that any sensible amount of mischief has arisen from the fact that our deliberations upon nominations and treaties have been secret. I believe we have deliberated with quite as much regard for public interest under the seal of secrecy, when we were really advising and consulting the President in regard to its matters, as we should have done if we had thrown open the doors and subjected our debates and our votes to popular scrutiny. I believe it is far safer to adhere to the rule than to make the change which is now proposed.

Mr. BORLAND. I am sorry to differ from my friend from Virginia in supposing that any detriment can come to the public interest of this country by subjecting anything and everything to public scrutiny. I cannot conceive the case of a treaty or anything else in which injury could come to the public interest by opening them to full inspection.

Mr. HUNTER. Does the Senator think it would be better to expose the deliberations of the President and Cabinet council to public scrutiny?

Mr. BORLAND. I should have no objection to it so far as they could be made public. I do not believe, as an American citizen and an American Senator, that any public officer of the Government has the right to utter sentiments affecting the public interest, which are not properly before the public for the inspection of every man in it. That is the ground on which I stand; and I stand upon it, because I believe the popular intelligence is sufficient to discuss wisely and properly every question that may come before the country. As to a man's private affairs, he may do as he pleases. The public have nothing to do with them, so far as they relate to him and his family; but so far as relates to the public interests of society, and the public interests of this country, whether on our own soil, or as they will stand in relation to foreign countries, I believe no man has a right to express a sentiment, or do any act which every man in this country, who has the rights and responsibilities of a citizen, who is to bear the burden of the Government, and whose interest is to be affected by its action, has not a right to know. That is my view of the relations between the public officers of this Government, whether legislative, executive, or judicial, and the people. I cannot conceive that this Government can properly be administered upon any other ground, unless we deny to the people the requisite amount of intelligence, patriotism, and honesty to give a fair consideration to all questions, and dispose of them as the interests of the country require.

These are the general considerations on which I stand in relation to this matter. Gentlemen seem to think that there is something sacred in a man's private character. I admit that there is, yet when he comes forward as an applicant or candidate for public favor, there is nothing that the public has not a right, and ought not to be permitted to know. Sir, is there anything more sacred in the character of an individual who comes before the Senate, nominated by the President for an office under this Government, than there is in the character of an individual who goes before a State Legislature for a seat on this floor, or before the people for a seat in the other House of Congress, or for a place in a State Legislature, or for a governor, judge, or anything to which the people are electable? I conceive not; and whoever supposes at home or anywhere but here, when a man becomes a candidate for office that his character is so sacred that we cannot talk about it in public? What do our newspaper presses do with every man's character who places himself before the public as a candidate for office? They examine him in every particular. They hold him up to the gaze of the public. If he has faults, they make them known; and they ought to be made known. Why then should the character of a man who wants to be a foreign minister, an auditor, a treasurer, a secre

32D CONG.....3D Sess.

tary of State, or any other officer to whose appointment we advise and consent, be more sacred? The public have a right to know his character. If it be good then he is fit for the office. If it be bad the people have a right to know it; and their representatives in the Senate have no right to confirm a nomination unless it is of a character with which the people can be satisfied.

With regard to the treaties, I may be behind the age in which I live. It is probable that I am; but I cannot conceive of an instance when it is necessary that a treaty should be acted upon in secret. I do believe that if in all our discussions upon treaties the doors of the Senate had been open, and the newspaper press at liberty to comment upon our proceedings, very many treaties which are now the law of the land would never have been ratified. I do not believe the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo or the Clayton-Bulwer treaty would have been ratified; or at any rate we should have been spared the almost interminable discussion which we had at a recent session, consuming almost all our time, and costing how much money, I do not know, if they had been laid before the public, when the newspaper press could have taken them up and discussed them, and the people could have understood them. I believe there are many men who voted for those treaties, who would be glad if they could go back and vote "no" upon them. I believe incalculable mischief has been done to the public interests by having secret discussions, and I believe it would be avoided if the doors were always open to reporters of the public press, and to the people themselves to come in, and hear every word uttered on the floor, and then be permitted to discuss among themselves every question which is before us.

Special Session-Open Executive Sessions.

sents itself to my mind-that suggested by the Senator from Virginia [Mr. HUNTER] in regard to the subject of nominations. If it is to be understood that all nominations are to be public, unless when particular nominations are designated as the subject of private consideration, every time we consider a nomination in private it will involve us in difficulty. I have had occasion to oppose nominations for my own State, even those sent in by a Whig Administration, and to give my reasons for so doing; and I have had occasion to say here that appointments made even by my own political friends were of a very objectionable character. Nominations of this kind come before us, and Senators feeling a delicacy on the subject would not feel at liberty to speak with perfect freedom in public of the character of a man who may be up for an office, and whom we should think incompetent for the office, and if one were to move to make the matter one for the private consideration of the Senate, the motion itself would indicate what was to follow. Under these circumstances, of all things on earth the nominations for offices submitted to the consideration of the Senate should be treated as confidential, as we would treat them in our personal intercourse. I trust, therefore, the practice of the Senate will not be departed from. I know the subject has been agitated and discussed, but the result of the discussion has always been that the Senate has adhered to its preceding practice; and I think if the contrary method obtained the experience of the Senate would, in a few months, show them the necessity for changing it back to the old one.

Mr. BORLAND. I am not at all surprised to hear the sentiments expressed by the Senator from Vermont, for I would say with all respect to him that they are appropriate to the political party to which he belongs, and to so able a representative of it as he is upon this floor. It is perfectly nat

have not.

Mr. PHELPS. During my experience in this body, several efforts have been made to change the rule of the Senate in relation to our mode of holding Executive sessions; and to my gratifica-ural for gentlemen of his political school to suppose tion every attempt of that kind has been successfully resisted. I have to say now that from the very existence of the Senate down to the present day, the rule which now obtains has governed it. We have then from the first organization of the Senate to the present day, the opinions of all who have gone before us in support of the rule as it now exists, to treat matters of a certain description in secret session. Why should we abolish it? Why should we at this stage of the Senate with a bare quorum present take it upon ourselves to change permanently the character of the Senate, and to regulate the proceedings of those who are to come after us? Sir, a radical change of this kind ought not to be made hastily. It ought not to be made in a moment, when the sense of a full Senate cannot be obtained.

Mr. BORLAND. Will the Senator permit me to say that this is not a new question? Five years ago it was before the body, and it has been more or less discussed at every session since.

Mr. PHELPS. That is just what I remarked in the outset, that efforts have been made from time to time to abolish our present rule, and they have always been unsuccessful. There are most abundant reasons for our holding secret sessions. Does any man believe that our negotiations with foreign nations can be conducted with success, if every project which is started by the treaty-making power is to be made and acted upon subject to public inspection at the time? Are we to gain anything by exhibiting our diplomacy to the world when the practice of the rest of the world is to keep their diplomacy to themselves? It seems to me that we are not. We are often compelled, in the discussion of treaties, to act upon considerations which at the moment would not bear to meet the public view. Take the instance suggested by the Senator, the treaty of peace with Mexico. That treaty was negotiated during a period of great excitement. When we were called upon to act on it the excited state of feeling arising from the war in which we were then involved was very high, and it was therefore our duty not to be guided by the public feeling and public excitement, but by our own deliberate judgment on the subject, trusting to a rational view afterwards, when the public excitement subsided, to justify ourselves before the public. And that we could not have done in open session.

But there is another consideration which pre

that this Government (for I understand that to be one of the fundamental principles of his party) is something separate and apart from the peopleabove them-and having rights which the people I was a little surprised, though, to hear the Senator from Virginia, [Mr. HUNTER,] because he belongs to another political school which does hold to responsibility on the part of the representative to the constituents. But, sir, the Senator from Vermont I think is perfectly consistent. He is acting upon and carrying out the great principle upon which his party has acted in all its policy from the beginning of the Government down. The idea that the Government is a thing separate and apart from the people, and looks down upon them as altogether without intelligence and disqualified for considering and determining on matters relative to their interest, is drawn from Governments on the other side of the Atlantic; but under this Government, which is based upon the very idea of the intelligence of the people, their competency for self-government, their sufficiency in point of public virtue and intelligence to understand and discharge wisely and properly all questions relating to their interests, it seems to me that such a doctrine is altogether out of place.

With regard to treaties, it seems to me that sscret negotiations are very proper to European countries, where the Governments do not look to the interests of the people, but only to the interest of the particular dynasty that happens to be reigning at the time, and where the diplomacy and negotiations consist in a sort of family arrangement for the benefit of the governors, and not of the governed, leading to many things with which we do not have anything to do in our treaties, such as their contracts for marriage for the purpose of sustaining such a dynasty on a particular throne, for the elevation of one and putting down of another, and to carry out some combination among the nations. We stand apart from all such considerations as those. We have no connection with them. We have no such connection with other Governments. We deny the right of other governments to interfere in our affairs, and we disclaim the right on our part to interfere with theirs. It has seemed to me from the limited view I have been able to take of the subject, that our system of diplomacy has been one of humbuggery and deceit, and that if we had a little plain sailing and open dealing in our relations with foreign |

SENATE.

countries, we should have much less cause of trouble. I know these may be considered ultra Democratic, and radical notions. Very well, I am content to entertain them, and leave to those gentlemen who believe there is something sacred in the character of our Government, some rights peculiar to it, separate and apart from the people, to entertain the opposite opinion; but until I can believe that the people are not sufficiently intelligent or virtuous to be intrusted with their own affairs, and that the representative shall not be held directly and strictly responsible for everything he does, and everything he says in relation to the public interest, I shall be opposed to anything like secrecy in our proceedings. If our proceedings are right we have no cause to fear their being submitted to the people. If we are not conscious that they are right, if they are of a doubtful policy or positively wrong, we should not engage in them. Sir, I want my constituents to know not only what I do in regard to their interests, but what I think. I would entertain no opinion and express none, and give no vote that I would not desire them to know, and the reasons which govern me in giving it.

Mr. PHELPS. Mr. President, I am extremely gratified with the position which the honorable Senator has taken. Although I have been for some years a member of this body, I have never considered myself as the particular exponent of the principles and views of any party. If the Senator attributes to my party sentiments which the honorable Senator from Virginia has just advanced, and if I am the exponent of Whig principles and practices, unfortunately the distinguished Senator from Virginia is in the same category. Now, sir, I might retort upon the Senator, and ask him if the Senator from Virginia is an exponent of Whig principles? In the few remarks which I made, I alluded to the practice of the Senate from its origin to the present day, during which it has been sustained by all who have gone before us, and certainly they were not all Whigs.

But, sir, there is another consideration here. Is not the Senator aware that this practice has prevailed during a period of some sixty or seventy years, and when the majority in the Senate has consisted of his party? Has it not been so during most of our experience here? And if this rule be one consisting of Whig principles and Whig notions, how happens it that the Senator and his political friends have not abrogated it? Sir, if this is a Whig doctrine it comes with not a very good grace from a gentleman associated with the majority of this body, to retort upon us.

And

I do not know that anything fell from me in the remarks which I submitted, which would indicate that I had any party view in the expression of them. I spoke of the propriety of the thing. Now, I put it to the Senator from Arkansas himself, if a nomination were made from his own State, which was unpalatable to himself, would he be willing to express his views fully in public upon it? I am perhaps not a man of as much firmness as he is, but I do not think that I would. here let me remark that this rule of the Senate has been made for its own protection, and it ought not to be submitted to the discretion of the President. It is not for the Executive to determine whether our proceedings shall be in secret or in public. It pertains to the dignity of the body to regulate that. If a nomination is made, and the President consults us in relation to the propriety of that nomination, the very proposition is confidential in its character. Suppose the chairman of a committee to whom a nomination is referred in this body appeals to me and says, "Sir, here is a nomination for your own State; you know the man; what do you say of him?" I may reply that he is a very good citizen, but that in my humble opinion he has not the integrity which entitles him to that office. Would any chairman of a committee in this body feel himself at liberty to come and report to the Senate that I had expressed doubts of his integrity? Would any member of a committee who consulted a Senator from the State, feel at liberty to disclose a communication which was asked for as confidential? Now, sir, if there would be no propriety in that, if there would be no propriety in disclosing it to an assembly of this character, is there any propriety in calling in the whole country as witnesses to what I would say

32D CONG....3D SESS.

in respect to the man? The Senator seems to consider that all the affairs are of a private nature. But there are considerations which come before us connected with confidential communications between us and the President, which are in their very nature confidential, and ought to be so treated, and would be so treated in the private intercourse of all honorable men.

I am not disposed to protract this discussion, but, sir, I must be permitted to say that whatever may be the views of other gentlemen, I hope and trust that I shall leave this place, and take leave of public life with a better consciousness than that of having been the mere organ of a party. In the remarks which I made I had no regard to any question in its political aspect. If it were a party question the matter would have been different. In the remarks which I made, I had only reference to what was the practice of the Senate, and the propriety of that practice.

Special Session-Voting by Machinery.

from the people. Sir, I am as much a friend of the people as the Senator; but I am a friend to the people whose judgment, whose public interest is to be respected. I am not a friend of that people who are to be regarded as the irresponsible multitude, whose transient public sentiments are not to govern me. If this country is to preserve its liberty, and we are to appeal to the tribunal of the people, I want it to be one of intelligence; and it is on that account that I wish to preserve this Government in its ancient form. I am not one of those who would break down, unnecessarily at least, any of the great landmarks which our forefathers prescribed for our guidance.

Mr. SUMNER. Party allusions and party considerations have been brought to bear upon this question. I wish to regard it for a moment in the light of the Constitution and our institutions. In the Constitution there is no injunction of secrecy on any of the proceedings of the Senate; nor is there any requirement of publicity. To the Senate is left absolutely the determination of its rules of proceedings. In thus abstaining from all regulation of this matter the framers of the Constitution have obviously regarded it as in all respects within the discretion of the Senate, to be exercised from time to time as it thinks best.

Mr. BUTLER. This is not the first time that this subject has been under the consideration of the Senate since I have been a member of it. I recollect that some five or six years ago an honorable Senator from Ohio, [Mr. Allen,] introduced a resolution of the same kind; and I know that in the discussion which took place at that time all the old and respected Senators who were then in the Senate, Mr. Calhoun, Mr. Clay, and Mr. Webster, took the same ground with the fathers of the Republic, and without distinction of party insisted upon the security of this usage; that is, of the Sen-ondly, the power "to advise and consent" to ate being a confidential body for certain purposes to advise the President. I I should be very sorry to see it departed from. This is not a pure democracy. If the Government of the United States was an undisguised and simple democracy, perhaps the gentlemen might well insist upon a resolution of this kind. They might make the Senate the arena for the discussion of every subject as was done in Athens, or in democracies where the people directly had a vote. But we are a confederacy of organized republics, and we live under a constitution-a constitution by whose obligations I feel bound, as well as the usages under it.

In private life when we have very grave matters to consider, we generally call friends into confidential consultation. Grand juries are organized upon the same principle.

Mr. BORLAND. Very improperly. Mr. BUTLER. The Senator says very improperly. I am one of those who believe that there is much more wisdom in the experience and trial and ordeal of time than in a hasty judgment. It has been quaintly said by some one that constitutions are made by a few sober men to control themselves and the many when they are drunk. I believe that it is not an unwise proposition, that a constitution should be made deliberately and absolutely to guard us against temptations of excitement when Occasions might arise to inflame the passions.

In regard to discussions on treaties, if foreign nations were to understand that we were to deliberate upon their secret communications, and upon their treaties, in public, I doubt very much whether they would make such communications as would enable us to take such advantages as would be of service to us. I doubt very much whether they would not withhold from us the very clue to the system of policy to enable us to adopt it with intelligence. Sir, such discussions of treaties is unknown in any other Government. I know it is said that this is a perfect democracy, that this is a model republic, which is to set everything at defiance, and that all that has gone before us, and the precepts and example of our ancestors, are so many impediments in the way of the progress of modern intelligence. I do not think so. I have the organ of veneration. If you are to open the galleries of the Senate to witness the discussion of nominations, in many instances, rather than go out to take my share in the collisions with men on the streets, I would say nothing at all. I might be tempted, from a sense of justice, to do so. If Senators and the President asked my opinion I would give it freely and fairly, but I would give it under such circumstances at least as not to subject myself to the popular mobs that might be organized out of the Chamber.

The old usages of our Government seem to be crumbling away. Democratic clubs and associations are taking the steps that should emanate NEW SERIES.-No. 21.

The Senate exercises three important functions: First, the legislative or parliamentary power, wherein it acts concurrently with the House of Representatives, as well as the President; sectreaties with foreign countries in concurrence with the President; and, thirdly, the power "to advise and consent" to nominations by the President to offices under the Constitution. I say nothing of another, rarely called into exercise, the sole power to try impeachments.

At the first organization of the Government the proceedings of the Senate, whether in legislation or on treaties or on nominations, were with closed doors. In this respect the legislative business and executive business were conducted alike. This continued down to the second session of the Third Congress, in 1794, when, in pursuance of a formal resolution, the galleries were allowed to be opened so long as the Senate were engaged in their legislative capacity, unless in such cases as might, in the opinion of the Senate, require secrecy; and this rule has continued ever since. Here was an exercise of

the discretion of the Senate, in obvious harmony with public sentiment and the spirit of our institutions.

The change now proposed goes still further. It opens the doors on all occasions, whether legislative or executive, except when specially ordered otherwise. The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. BUTLER] says that the Senate is a confidential body, and should be ready to receive confidential communications from the President. But this will still be the case if we adopt the resolution now under consideration. The limitation proposed seems ample for all exigencies, while the general rule will be publicity. The Executive sessions with closed doors, shrouded from the public gaze and public criticism, constitute an exceptional part of our system, too much in harmony with the proceedings of other Governments less liberal in character. The genius of our institutions requires publicity. The ancient Roman who bade his architect so to construct his house that his guests and all that he did could be seen by the world, is a fit model for the American people.

Mr. MASON. I move to postpone the further consideration of the resolution until to-morrow. The motion was agreed to.

SENATE.

Resolved, That the 34th rule of the Senate be amended by adding to the clause providing for a committee of three members, whose duty it shall be to audit and control the contingent expenses of the Senate, the following:

And to whom shall be referred all resolutions directing the payment of money out of the contingent fund of the Senate, or creating a charge on the same.

PUBLICATION OF DEBATES. Mr. SEWARD. I offer the following resolution, and ask for its consideration now.

Resolved, That the Secretary be authorized to procure the publication in the National Intelligencer, of so much of the debates of the Senate during the last session of Congress as has not been already published in that paper, and to pay for such publication, and also for the publication of speeches of that session already made in the Intelligencer, the sum of four dollars per column.

Mr. CHASE. Let it lie over.

The memorial was read.

Mr. HOUSTON. In submitting that memorial I am willing to acknowledge that I am not sufficient of a mechanic to pronounce a positive decision upon this new mode of taking the yeas and nays; but from the examination which I have been able to give it, in connection with other Senators older and more experienced than myself, I feel convinced that the adoption of it will be the means of a great saving of time, that in point of accuracy it is perfect, and it will afford Senators who wish to talk a much better opportunity than they now have. It will have a tendency to shorten the sessions of Congress, and particularly so in the House of Representative, if it should answer the purpose for which it is intended, as I believe it will. The sum required for the purpose of making the experiment is inconsiderable compared to the value that will ultimately result to the Government if it should be found efficient as is expected. Fifteen hundred dollars is all that will be necessary, and that will enable a key to be put at every Senator's desk and the machine to be put in operation. In the operation of the machine there is no possibility of an inaccuracy taking place. I know not how many Senators have examined it; but I am sure that any one who has paid any attention to its operation in the hands of the inventor must be satisfied that it is a perfect machine of its kind.

It may be objected that in the working of the machine while the yeas and nays are being taken, if a Senator were not in his own seat he could not vote. That is very easily obviated, for when the yeas and nays are read over by the Clerk, after the vote has been taken, he could record his vote in the same manner as is done now. He could do that if he were absent and came in during the call of the yeas and nays or at their termination, so that no objection can be made to it on that ground. No other person but the Senator himself can vote in his seat. If the machine is fixed at his desk he has his key and can lock it when he leaves it. No one can take advantage of his position to vote in his absence; and not only that, if he should lose his key, all that he will have to do when the yeas and nays are read over will be to address the President and record his vote as is now done. It will not conceal the vote of any individual. He cannot vote covertly because his name will be read by the Clerk as soon as the voting has taken place. I can see no possible objection to the machine. If the experiment should prove it to be