learned chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for bring- [H. of R. and he referred to a statement of the late lamented Mr. Bradford, made in the year 1795, showing that, although the burning of a dwelling house was made a capital of fence by the laws of Pennsylvania, and the burning of other buildings was not so, yet, of all the buildings which had been destroyed by incendiaries, since the introduction of that distinction, by far the greater part were dwelling houses. The second disadvantage was the effect of the exhibition on the public_mind. If frequently exhibited, it had one of two effects, either to give a ferocious character to our population in cherishing and strengthening those feelings which, in Rome, led to the exhibition of Gladiators, and in some Romish countries, of the Auto da Fe, or else it produced a total indifference. If rarely exhibited, the sufferer was by sympathy converted into a hero, his crime was forgotten, though of the deepest die. The clergy, induced by the best of feelings, gathered around him. The criminal was, or affected to be, impressed by the truths of religion, and he then became a saint-all eyes were fastened upon him-all hearts rejoiced in the triumphs of piety over the most obdurate heart: even the softer sex, forgetting their native horror of crime, flocked around him, administering every comfort; and the felon went forth to the place of execution, as to a triumph, followed by an escort that would not disgrace the most distinguished citizen. He asked whether such punishment could be expected to produce the desired effect? Instead of rendering the criminal detested, and his crime avoided, his crime was softened or forgotten, and he admired as a christian hero. Mr. L. here read several extracts from an examination gone into before the British House of Commons, with express relation to this subject, and which concurred to prove that the punishment of death was, in England, attended by no beneficial impression whatever. Under the sanguinary code of that country, crimes, instead of diminishing, had multiplied, and, he believed, had even been more numerous in England since the time of Elizabeth, when there were sometimes as many as two thousand executions in a single year; on the contrary, he contended that, in proportion as the criminal code in this country had relaxed in rigor, crimes had been diminished; while, at the same time, murder, almost the only one excepted from the mitigation, was never more frequent in the United States than at the present time. He felt persuaded that solitary confinement, if properly conducted, would have a much more beneficial effect than the infliction of death. Let the dark cell of the criminal be marked by the inscription—“ Whoever enters here, leaves hope behind;" or with this-" Behold the doom which awaits one human being for the murder of another." He then inquired whether death was a better remedy than the infliction of penalties less severe. He referred to the gradual progress which had been made by all the states in the Union, in softening the features of their penal code. The long black list of 160 capital offences had, by degrees, been reduced in some cases to four or five. He lamented that, while this was the case, under the state Governments, the Code of the United States still retained as many as twenty different offences, punishable by death. He traced the progress of a similar mitigationin the lawsof European Governments, and particularly those of England, and he expressed a hope that it might be continued until this country should merit the high eulogium bestowed upon the Roman Republic, that, of all nations, it had the mildest punishments. He referred to the doubts expressed by many great and wise men adverse to the right of taking human life at all, and then, considering the subject on grounds of policy merely, he proceeded to examine and to contrast the advantages and disadvantages attending the infliction Another objection to the punishment of death was the of capital punishments. The general object of punish- unequal effect produced upon the convict himself. It ment was to prevent crimes; first, that of the criminal was a punishment very different in its intensity, as inhimself, and secondly, that of others. Death effectually flicted on different persons. One condemned wretch resecured the first point. The criminal capitally execut-ceived it as a blessing; another met it with perfect indifed, could not repeat his offence. It also, in some degree, secured the second object by presenting to others a striking example, calculated to terrify the imagination and deter from crimes. The third and only additional There existed another disadvantage: this punishment advantage attending it was, that it was not so expensive once inflicted, was irrevocable; and, if inflicted wrongas imprisonment. The disadvantages were, in the first fully, admitted of no redress. A mistake might be displace, that, in very many instances, it produced impuni-covered, but the sufferer was gone; the justice of society. Such was the reluctance of witnesses, judges, and ty could not reach him. Mr. L. here dwelt upon the jurors, to convict when conviction was to be followed uncertainty of circumstantial evidence, the dangerous by the death of the accused, that he was too often per- effect of public excitement, and quoted instances in mitted to escape; or, even if the evidence was such as which the offender, after being executed, was found to to compel his conviction, a pardon interposed to pre- have been innocent. He inferred the probability of vent his punishment. On this head, Mr. L. remarked many other similar cases, which were not discovered, upon the muliplication of murders, and the compara- because there were few who took any interest in the intive rareness of executions, and insisted that, if the pu- vestigation. Public justice was satisfied, and all farther nishment were lighter, punishment would be more cer- inquiries slept with the convict in his grave. Had he tain. He applied this remark to the crime in question, been punished by imprisonment, the discovery of his in ference; while another was perfectly excruciated by the sentence; and, though held to be the most equal of all punishments, it was, in truth, the most unequal. H. of R.] United States' Penal Code. [JAN. 25, 1825. nocence would have restored him to liberty, and himself special application to the present bill. It might be good and his family to their former standing. The power of reasoning against capital punishment in general, but, the state might penetrate the dungeon; it could not pe- while such punishments were retained in our code, he netrate the grave-it could not silence the upbraidings could not see why the horrible crime of arson should be of conscience, or stop the widow's tears. In reply to exempted from it. By the act of 1820, robbery committed the argument that death had always been awarded as the on the high seas, and, by the act of 1804, the burning of punishment of murder, he answered, first, that the pre-a vessel on the high seas, were both punished with death. cedent was not binding; and, in the second place, de- So was forgery of government securities or of the current nied its universality. During a great part of the Roman coin, and, while these offences are capitally punished, on Republic, death was not inflicted as a punishment for what imaginable ground should a felon be spared who any offence. There was no evidence, from history, that sets fire to a dwelling house in the dead of night? He crimes were then unusually numerous. But, when capi- did not expressly assert that death was, in any case, intal punishments were afterwards revived, under the Em- dispensable as a punishment; but, if there was any thing perors, every body knew that crimes were multiplied which warranted the taking away the life of the offendbeyond all example. He would not say, however, that er, it was a crime which put in jeepardy the lives of so the effect had the punishment of death for its cause. He many of his fellow creatures. He did not think it was just insisted much upon the experiment made by Leopold, to accuse the United States' Laws of being so much more Duke of Tuscany, under whose authority capital punish- severe than those of the individual States. The reason ments had been abolished in that Duchy for twenty why the former contained a longer list of crimes was to years, during which time crimes were comparatively be found in the nature and extent of the United States' rare, and the prisons, at some periods, were literally emp- jurisdiction; many of the crimes, capitally punished, bety; yet, at no greater distance than Rome, there occur- ing such as could only be committed against the United red sixty executions in a period of six months. States. The laws of this country already deserved the encomium of which the gentleman had spoken, as being milder in punishment than those of any other nation.— The gentleman was mistaken in supposing that the list of capital crimes in England had been so far reduced; one hundred and sixty offences were still punished with death by the English law. Nor were there as many pardons as among us. He considered the argument of the gentleman from Louisiana as applicable rather to the manner in which capital punishments are conducted, than to the punishment itself. As to the difficulty of convicting, of which the gentleman had spoken, he did not know that it was any greater in respect to arson, than to the other crimes now capitally punished. was the crime so much more difficult to be proved. The gentleman had said, that the punishment of death, once inflicted, was irremediable. But this was no more than might be said of all punishments. The act of punishment could not be recalled-and the consequences were often such as could not be changed. He had quoted the examinations which took place by order of the House of Commons, from which it appeared that the convicts often exhibited the most brutal insensibility. He thought, for his own part, that the lives of such men were not worth preserving to the state. What hope was there of men who could engage in playing bowls when they knew that they were just about to be executed? With respect to the instance he had quoted as having happened at N. Orleans, where six pirates had been condemned on the testimony of a perjured witness, he thought that the proper doctrine to be raised from the case, was not that piracy should not be punished with death, but that perjury should be. The case must certainly have been strong indeed, if the eloquence of that gentleman had failed to save the innocent. He should have thought it sufficient to persuade any tribunal to spare even the most guilty. Mr. L. insisted, with earnestness, that such examples called upon this nation to make a similar experiment. Mr. L. adverted to a case in N. Orleans where six friendless strangers had been executed on a c ar e of piracy,on the testimony of a witness who was afterwards proved to be perjured. The last objection urged by Mr. I.. was, that, in evil times, men disposed to oppress their country, found, in the established use of capital punishment, an instrument drawn and sharpened to their hand. How often, in party contests, or civil wars, has the revolting spectacle been exhibited of judicial murders, (two terms the last that ought to be associated,) where the murderer was clad in ermine, and his victim suffered at noon day? Was it possible to look upon such a sight and be calm? Yet he did not seek to address the feelings of the House, or to invade that serenity that ought ever to accompany legislation. He again repeated that he well knew the practice of nations was against it, and that even our own example might be urged as a precedent. But we had begun to mitigate our code, and he asked whether we should go back, or should proceed in the work of improvement. He prayed the House to excuse his warmth on the subject. Nay, he was on the point of addressing the chair, as if it were a court, and this House as though they formed a grand jury. They were, indeed, a jury of the country, sitting to try no small or trifling cause, but a question which involved all the future accused at all the tribunals of the country-a question which demanded an appeal to the heart and the conscience; and he intreated gentlemen not to perse vere in any course which their conscience condemned, because it might be sustained by the opinion of this or that distinguished man. Mr. L. closed by a quotation from Lord Coke, in which even that severe and harsh judge expresses the sentiment that if any person could see in a single field all the victims who have been executed in the course of a year, undergoing at one time the dreadful punishment of the gallows, he could not, if he possessed the smallest spark of humanity, but mourn over the spectacle and regret the necessity of such an expenditure of human life. He then, in a few words, assigned the reasons which induced him, contrary to his first intention, so to modify his amendment as to retain the word felony, and limit the amendment only to the mode of punishment. Mr. DWIGHT, of Massachusetts, expressed the reluctance with which he said any thing in opposition to a speech which had done so much credit both to the head and the heart of the gentleman from Louisiana, but he could not perceive, although the gentleman had spoken much and eloquently against the infliction of death as a punishment for crime, how his general reasoning had any Nor Mr. LIVERMORE, of New Hampshire, laid it down as a universal rule, that punishment should never be inflicted, when it could as safely be avoided; and when it was inflicted, should never be greater than was indispensably necessary. But when we had gone thus far, Mr. L. observed, we were met by the grand and fundamental principle, that society possesses the right to defend itself. Without this principle, all laws were but in vain, and there could be no such thing as social existence in such a world as this. In exercising this right, enough of severity must be employed to effect the end, viz: the common safety. He had been sorry to hear from the gentleman from Louisiana, arguments which addressed themselves rather to the feelings, than to the understanding-arguments, all of which seemed to be in favor of the culprit, rather than of those who suffered by him. Ought not the gentleman to look at the other JAN. 25, 1825.] United States' Penal Code. [H. of R. side of the picture? Ought he not to think of whole fa- He replied to the cases of improper executions which milies, leaping in the dead of night from amidst the had been cited by the gentleman from Louisiana. The flames of their own dwelling? Ought he not to have fa-person condemned in Vermont, had been convicted on vored the House with this picture, as well as with those his own voluntary confession of the murder; and though which he had described so eloquently? Ought he not to those who were executed in New Orleans might have direct his compassion to these innocent sufferers, as been innocent of the crime of piracy, some of those who much as to the culprit? The gentleman had argued escaped punishment on that occasion, within less than against the settled opinion of the whole world. It was six weeks, went out to sea and committed a murder on needless to answer him, since he was already met by the the captain of a vessel from Kennebunk. arguments of all writers, and the experience of all legislators. Mr. LIVINGSTON rose in reply, and observed, that the opinion of the gentleman from Massachusetts would Mr. L. said he felt every respect for the name of Brad- have great weight with him, was he not obliged, by the ford, and considered the opinions of that excellent man nature of the case, to settle the general principle before as forming very high authority. But it must be remem- he could vote on the present bill. Gentlemen say, perbered, that Bradford wrote, when, what might be called mit this bill to pass and the punishment of death to be the Penitentiary mania was at its full height in Penn- inflicted, and afterwards discuss the general principle sylvania, and when that system was in the full tide of whether death should ever be inflicted. This is neither experiment. Experience had, since that time, every more nor less than asking me to be guilty of murder, where shewn, that that system did not produce the ex- since I think that death ought not to be inflicted at all. pected results; and the current of public opinion was I cannot divide the question. I cannot say, let this bill now running fast the other way. He must be permitted | go, and to-morrow I will inquire, nor can any others say to correct an error of the gentleman from Louisiana, and so who entertain a doubt on the lawfulness of capital to defend the cause of a virgin queen. It was not true punishments. Mr. L. observed that he must have been that capital punishments had abounded so much in the greatly misunderstood, or honorable gentlemen certainreign of Elizabeth. On the contrary, her laws were far ly would not ask him to go in direct contradiction to the milder than those of the preceding reign. It was under principles he had advanced. The gentleman from MasHenry Eighth that human blood had streamed in such sachusetts, (Mr. DwIGHT,) had said that it was not surtorrents, and it was computed that seventy-two thou- prising that the United States' code should contain a sand capital punishments had been inflicted in thirty-six longer list of capital crimes than the codes of the states, years, making an average of two thousand executions in because its jurisdiction extended farther. This was not a year. The argument after all comes to a single point. so. Until the present bill was introduced, it did not go The question is not whether we will now enact a new so far. The divine law had been referred to, in which system of penal law, but simply whether we will relax God says, whoso shed man's blood, by man shall his blood the punishment for arson. He asked whether this was be shed; but to whom does God say this? To us? No. safe; he insisted on the necessity of securing the public He says it to the Jews: and, though with that reverence safety. He dwelt on the dangerous nature united to the it becomes us always to feel towards divine revelation, facility of the crime, and the impossibility of guarding we must acknowledge that such a regulation was suitaagainst it, except by the terrors of a severe punishment. ble for the Jews. It does not, therefore, follow, that it The bill, he insisted, created but a few capital offences, is binding on us. It might as well be said that we are and these were such as every country punished with bound to keep the passover. But, what was done in death. It did not enlarge, but diminish the previous num- the case of the first murderer? Here we have a case on ber. He repelled the idea of abolishing it out of mercy record. to the criminal-insisted that the instances of mistaken | condemnation were extremely few, and such as could not well be guarded against; that they did not happen more frequently with respect to this punishment than others; and that the argument, from the irremediable nature of the punishment, if it proved any thing, proved too much. No punishment could be completely recalled, and so none whatever must be inflicted! The disgrace of a public whipping could not be effectually removed, and there were men who would prefer death to the endurance of that disgrace. A man may be whipped through mistake, when innocent-but are we, there fore, to abstain from all punishment? Was death inflicted there as the punishment of murder? No! a mark was set upon the murderer, and he was turned loose, and when he expressed a fear of being killed by others, it was expressly told him that that mark should be his protection. Mr. L. disclaimed all intention to lessen the offence, or argue in favor of the offender. His arguments were only in favor of the expediency of a particular mode of punishment. He disa vowed all intention of addressing the feelings of the House; denied that all books on the subject were against him; insisted that the experience of legislation, so far as it went, was in his favor; and, in reply to the argument of Mr. LIVERMORE, he professed himself as much op Mr. WEBSTER, of Massachusetts, said he had been posed to whipping, and to all punishments which were instructed and gratified by the observations of the gen-irremediable in their nature, as he did to the punishtleman from Louisiana; but he put it to the candor of ment of death. Imprisonment was remedial. The pri that gentleman to say, whether it was expedient to go soner might be released, and his sentence reversed. at large into the discussion of a general principle, and He again asked why must death be retained, entreated then confine its application to one case. The principle for an answer, and said that, if any gentleman would give was one on which there would be great diversity of him a good and sufficient reason, he should be satisfied. opinion; which, if adopted, must alter many laws, and He did not feel the force of the argument which said which could as well, and better, be discussed on a gene- that, because there were twenty cases of capital punral bill, providing that where death is now prescribed, ishment, therefore there must be twenty-one. Arson some other punishment should be substituted in its was a crime which, in general, could only be proved by place, according to the different degrees of criminality circumstantial evidence, and on such evidence men involved. would not convict the offender if death was to follow; but they would if a milder punishment was substituted for it. It had been said that arson was punished by death in all the states. He had examined that point, and found that in eleven states out of the twenty-four, this was not the case, and even where it was punished by death, in most instances there was a proviso requiring that some person should have lost their life in conse If the general question must now be gone into at large, the measure itself must fail, and a bill so much needed would have to be postponed to another session. He should, therefore, abstain altogether from the general argument, and he hoped that the House would pass the bill, since its provisions did not go further, if so far, as laws already in force. VOL. I.-23 H. of R. & Sen.] United States' Penal Code.-Internal Trade with Mexico. [JAN. 25, 26, 1825. quence of the burning. None could feel a greater horror of the crime than he did; but the question to be determined was, shall this House, because the crime is great, inflict a punishment improper in its principle, and uncertain in its effect? Mr. COOK, of Illinois, moved to amend the amendment of Mr. LIVINGSTON, by striking out the fine of five thousand dollars, and substituting a fine not exceeding the cost of prosecution, and he supported the amendment, on the ground that experience had convinced him, that where fine is united with corporeal punishment, the effect is to punish the innocent family of the offender, or, by inducing fraud, to involve others in his crime. Where no fraud succeeded, and the crime took effect, and absorbed the property of the delinquent, he found himself, on coming out of prison, in a situation calculated to lead him to new crimes. MY. C. went into some general remarks in opposition to capital punishments, and thought that, of all countries, this presented the most favorable opportunity for the experiment of the dispensing with them altogether. Mr. LIVINGSTON approved of the ground taken by the gentleman from Illinois, and adopted his amendment as a modification of his own, and the question then being on the amendment as modified, Mr. KREMER, of Pennsylvania, observed, that nothing but a strong sense of duty would induce him, at this late hour, to trouble the House. He thought that in a question of this kind, all feeling ought to be avoided, and he wished that the gentleman from Louisiana had not addressed the House in so eloquent a manner in behalf of the criminal suffering death. As to the question of policy there could be no doubt. The case was perfectly clear. The experience of every country and every age had declared it, and should we not profit by that experience? The gentleman himself says that there was a time when the capital punishments in other countries were as few as they now are in our own. Why then have they been increased? Because they have been found unavoidable. As to the right of society it is most clear. The individual makes war against the community, and the country treats him as they would treat any other enemy. As to the objection from persons sometime suffering innocently, it might as well be said that you must not have a razor to shave your beard, because, forsooth, you might by chance cut your throat. What does the penitentiary system after all amount to? Experience had demonstrated that it produced a school for crime. Profligates were collected from every corner of the country, and shut up in one jail, and thus came out greater villains than they went in-they scarcely got home, before they committed new crimes. He quoted the instance of a man in Pennsylvania who had been pardoned out of the State Prison, who exhibited his pardon in triumph all along the road, and, before he reached his home, committed the same crime for which he was put in. He believed the system to be founded in a mistaken feeling of humanity towards the wrong doer. The gentleman from Louisiana has, indeed, told us that, as the thing is conducted in this country, hanging is quite a frolic, and that the criminal goes off like a saint. This surely was a strong argument for multiply. ing capital punishments, because we have not too many to be marked out a road from the line of the state of Missouri, to the confines of New Mexico. On motion of Mr. LLOYD, of Mass. to strike out the second section of the bill, (which provides for marking out that part of the road in the Mexican territory,) Mr. CHANDLER said, that he had not yet been satisfied that Congress had a right to take the money from the pockets of the people of the United States, to lay out or expend in what is termed internal improvements, that is, to make roads and canals within the limits of any state in the Union. Gentlemen may tell me that this proposition does not come within the objection, as it is without the limits of any state; true, from five to seven hundred miles of the contemplated road are within the limits of the United States, and probably at least three hundred miles of it, not only without the limits of any state, but out of the limits of the United States, and within the territory of another power, to wit, that of Mexico. As I before observed, I have never been able to find, in the constitution of the United States, authori. ty given to Congress to lay out and make roads within the limits of any state in the Union, and there would, at least, be as much difficulty in finding authority for taking the money of the people, and therewith to mark out or survey roads within the dominions of another sovereign power. By the bill, sir, I perceive that we are to provide by treaty with the Indians, for the right of passing unmolested through the territory which they inhabit, and if those Indians should afterwards prove refractory, or take it into their heads to refuse us a passage through the country which they inhabit, why then, I suppose, we must submit to their caprice, or make war upon them, within the territory of Mexico. For, I presume, the line of this road will not be the line which divides that part of the country which is inhabited by Indians, from that which is not; nor is it probable that the line between the United States and Mexico will divide the country which is occupied by the Indians from that which is not. Viewing the whole subject as I do, sir, I must be better satisfied of the propriety of the measure than I now am, or 1 cannot vote for the bill. Mr. BENTON observed, he could answer the gentleman's objection with great ease. They were only going to treat with the Indians within the territories of the United States, and afterwards mark out the road through the Mexican territories, with their consent. Mr. LLOYD, of Massachusetts, asked, whether it would not be acceptable to the honorable mover of this bill, to limit the intended road to the boundary of the United States? There was a very great difference between making a road in our own territory and in that of another power, even with their own consent. He thought there was a strong impropriety in making roads for other people. However, he wished no argument on the subject, but would move to strike out the second section of the bill. The second section is as follows: "And be it further enacted, That the President of the United States be, and he hereby is, authorized to cause the marking of the said road to be continued from the boundary line of the United States to the frontier of New Mexico, under such regulations as may be agreed upon for that purpose between the Executive of the United States and the Mexican government." Mr. LOWRIE said, if this appropriation could be asked for at all, it was on the ground of protecting the commerce of the United States; and if that principle were admitted, it would require some ingenuity to show why an appropriation, which was to be expended beyond the territory of the United States, should not be made to the West, when so much was doing, and had been done, for the East? He adverted to the sums annually expended in keeping a fleet in the Mediterranean for the protection of commerce; and mentioned, as a case strongly in point, the negotiation opened by the Executive, during the last summer, with foreign governments, respecting the erection of a light-house on one of the West India islets. Mr. BARTON said, this bill amounted to nothing more than a declaration by Congress of a power exercised by the President of the United States in the case just mentioned. The duty and the power of the Executive will remain precisely the same; as the bill merely requests the President to cause a thing to be done, under certain regulations, which he had the power to do without the request. He could see nothing in this section incompatible with the rights or dignity of the government.He hoped, therefore, the section would not be stricken out. Mr. HOLMES, of Maine, thought there was no constitutional objection to the proposed measure, as the government might, if they thought proper, make a road in the territory of a foreign power, as well as within our own, provided they obtained the consent of that power. The Mexican government were equally interested with the United States in the prosperity of this trade, and therefore, if they thought it worth their while, they would and ought to do their part. It would be sufficient if we were to mark out the road to the boundary line, and let them meet us there. We were, in his opinion, a little premature in offering to mark out a road through the whole line, in their territory as well as our own, and then to ask for permission to mark it out beyond the boundary. The Mexican government must be aware of the value of the trade, and if they did not choose to meet us, it would be a fair presumption that they did not want to trade with us. He should, therefore, vote for the amendment. Mr. VAN BUREN thought that the government was called upon to afford the same protection to these people, who were engaged in a foreign trade, that was extended to those of the other parts of the Union. The only questions were, whether this trade existed, and whether it was a trade according to the laws and Constitution. If so, they have a right to call on the government for protection; provided, it could be given without infringing on any rights. The means proposed were, to mark out a road, and treat with the Indians for a safe passage. The motion to amend the bill was founded, be thought, on a mistaken view of the subject. It was not to make a road, that the appropriation was asked for, but to mark out, merely, the way the traders should go. This was to be done by negotiation with the Indians on this side of the line, and by negociation with the Mexican government, on the other side; and the appropriation of $30,000, was for this purpose. He did not apprehend, therefore, that any valid objection could exist. They were not going into a foreign country to make a road, but to treat with the Indians, and mark the way they should travel. Mr. MACON did not think this a matter of great importance. Most of the estates, said he, in my part of the country, were originally made by trading with the Indians, and that trade was carried on by traces; but we have got grander than our ancestors, and can't trade with the Indians now without roads being made. I don't care, said he, for precedents; if they are good, I am will ing to follow them; if not, I won't regard them. They are, generally, good or bad, as they happen to suit or oppose our wishes. The case of the road made by Mr. Jefferson, was among Indians comparatively civilized, who had some notions of property; but the road proposed now to be marked out, would pass through tribes perfectly wild, who, as soon as they see a white man, think of nothing but to fight and kill him, if they are able. There was nothing that could be secured by negotiating with these wild and savage people. Make what bargain you please with them, they will continue to commit depredations on your traders, whenever they see a good opportunity. It would, therefore, do no [Senate. good to treat with them. As to the Spaniards, with whom this trade was carried on, Mr. M. said, they may have a great deal of money, but, generally, money and knowledge went together; and, though he could not say any thing of their character himself, the description given of them, yesterday, by the gentleman from Missouri, was not very favorable. But, Mr. M. said, as the friendship of these Indians could not be bought, he thought it would be safer for the traders to go through their country by different routes, than to have but one, which would give the Indians the best opportunities for ambush, and committing depredation and murder. Mr. JOHNSON, of Kentucky, said that he was always happy to have his worthy friend from North Carolina, (Mr. MACON,) with him in any measure of legislation.He recollected that, during the session, his friend had supported him in a very important proposition, and he should not forget the delight which he experienced in having with him a member so distinguished for long services and integrity of principle. On this occasion, he had entertained some hopes that the gentleman from North Carolina would agree to appropriate $10,000, to find out the best and most direct trace for the enterprising citizen of the West to pursue his trade to Santa Fe, and the western parts of Mexico, when the West had never hesitated to vote for any measure which was necessary to protect the lives or property of our sea-faring citizens. Do you call for fortifications? We vote the money to make them. Do you want an increase of the Navy, to secure our commerce upon the high seas, and to secure our seaboard in case of war? We grant the sum necessary to accomplish the object. Do you want additional sloops of war, and additional means, to suppress piracy? We give the money, till the Executive government says "enough.” You have asked for $500,000 this year, to suppress piracy in the West Indies: we are ready to give it. We ask for $10,000, to facilitate our trade with Santa Fe, and to take measures to secure our enterprising citizens in their lives and their property while pursuing that lucrative and important trade. The pirates in the West Indian seas are stealing the property of our citizens, and murdering the officers and crews of your merchant vessels, without regard to age or sex; and annually, upon our interior and territorial frontier, our citizens are murdered by the natives of our forests. Every blast which crosses the great mountains of the Alleghany, brings the groans of the dying enterprising trader of the West, murdered by the Indian. Do not our citizens stand upon an equality, whether they be upon the high seas, or in the great American desert, extending to the Rocky Mountains? I feel the same indignation, whether I see the hands of the pirate, or the hands of the savage of the wilderness, imbrued in the blood of our fellow citizens. I feel the same indignation, whether that citizen be a hardy tar of the ocean, a citizen of the Rocky Mountains, or a resident of this metropolis. Another view is presented to my mind: we have many objects of national expenditure in the West, and it is the duty of Congress to make annual appropriations, out of the funds of the government in the West, towards those objects-additional military posts should be established-the Cumberland road should be extended to Missouri-a western armory should be erected, and a military armory should be established in some part of the Western states. I hope Congress will not forget the provision in the constitution, as to the regulations of commerce with foreign nations, among the seve ral states, and with the Indian tribes. While we build our ships of war, erect fortifications, and appropriate millions for the security of commerce and defence of our maritime frontier, we ask the sum of $10,000 for a great and important object of internal trade, and the security of those concerned in it in the Western country Can this appropriation be denied to us? I presume it cannot, We have done nothing more than our duty, in |