H. of R.]

Military Appropriations.

[FEB. 8, 1825.

estimate of the sum necessary to carry it into effect, as was held on his conduct, and it was pronounced an error made by the officer at Fort Monroe, had been $31,000.in judgment. He wished to know whether the present But in that sum was included the purchase of land and sum would complete the work, and at what time, and expenses of the cavalry drill; for the sake of economy, what was its present situation. the committee had dispensed with both these, and they Mr. McLANE replied to Mr. COCKE, and referred to now asked less than ten thousand dollars. This was to voluminous documents, which furnished all the details be applied to the purchase of fifty artillery horses, the requested by the gentleman from Tennessee. There was equipment of six pieces, and six caissons, forming to- every certainty that the sum now asked for would comgether what was called a division of artillery. He ear-plete the work. He accounted for the errors which had nestly and forcibly urged the usefulness of a system of happened in the estimates of the cost of public works by instruction in the management of Light Artillery, an arm the infancy of our system of engineering, and asked the of war which was found among the most efficient em- gentleman whether it was not common, even in buildployed in modern times. He referred to the exploits ing a house, that was to cost a certain sum, to find, beof Towson, and Archer, to the Battles of Bridgewater fore it was finished, it cost much more than was at first and Chippewa, to the French campaigns, and particu- contemplated? And whether it could be expected, that, larly to the battles of Austerlitz, Jena, and Marengo, as in an expenditure of $600,000, minute accuracy in the furnishing proof of its great effect, and concluded by estimates could always be attained? quoting a communication from the War Department, in which it is especially recommended.

The question being taken on this amendment, it was decided in the negative by a large majority.

Mr. SAUNDERS, of N. C. then moved to amend the bill by appropriating for a fort at Beaufort in North Carolina $30,000.

The original plan of the work, he said, had been varied. The officer who superintended its direction was inexperienced, and defects had taken place which must now be remedied. We have a report of the Engineer Department, and also an extensive estimate, with details down to ten and twelve dollars, all which was very much at the service of the gentleman from Tennessee. After all, it would be found that the total expense of the work very little exceeded the first estimate.

Mr. COCKE moved to reduce the appropriation for the Indian Department from 95,000 to 75,000 dollars. Mr. McLANE replied, that the annual appropriation had not been less heretofore than $95,000. That sum had been always required by the Department, and always granted by the House. At the session before last, the gentleman from Tennessee had inquired of the Department for detailed statements. A minute and extensive report had been made. The subject had been maturely deliberated. The House was satisfied, and had granted the $95,000. Last session, at the request of the same gentleman, it had been investigated again; the House again granted 95,000 dollars. At the present session, the Committee of Ways and Means had thought it unnecessary to refer to the Department for another statement. The ordinary documents of estimates, &c. were printed, and the gentleman might have access to them. It was easy for the gentleman to rise in his place and ask for the grounds of any estimate submitted, and to say he did not know the reason for this or for that expenditure. Nothing was easier. But he would submit it to the House whether a gentleman was entitled to do so without first showing that he himself had some knowledge of the subject, and assigning some reasons why the estimate was improper. The gentleman had said, the sum is large, and he does not know why it is required. But its necessity has been again and again explained to him.

Mr. COCKE remarked that he understood this to be a new fortification not proposed before. He thought it was better to finish those already begun than to commence new works. He did not know the necessity of the fort proposed, as there was no report on the subject from the War Department. Neither the Committee of Ways and Means, nor the Committee of Military Affairs, had recommended the measure. It had no other sanction than that of a member in his place. He knew that the waters on that coast were very shallow. He did not know that there were any interests there which peculiarly required protection, and, if there were, he did not know that this fort was calculated to protect them. Mr. SAUNDERS replied to the objections of the gentleman from Tennessee. He stated the importance of the port of Beaufort: not merely for its geographical situation, but as having been pointed out by the War Department, as a point which required defence. So important was it considered by that Department, that a Board of Engineers was directed to examine it, and make an estimate of the expense of fortifying it. If Congress then intended to go on with a general system of fortification, there could be no objection to the present measure. It was a part of the country which had received but little from the General Government. As to Wilmington, (for which place, also, he intended, if his present motion succeeded, to move an appropriation,) he knew that it was considered by the Government im portant to protect the trade there, as was proved by the fact, that a fort had formerly been erected at that place, but which was now in ruins. The reason why Mr. COCKE observed, in reply, that he should not have the measure had not been reported by the Commitee of made any remark on this subject, had he not retained Ways and Means, was, that the report from the Corps some recollection of the report made last year. He reof Engineers had not been received in time to be sub-membered that, at that time, there existed what was mitted to them; he had, therefore, offered it in his place. But he begged gentlemen to recollect that the fort was not to be erected in his district. He had advocated it simply on the ground of its utility.

The question was then taken on the amendment of Mr. SAUNDERS, and decided in the negative.

Mr. COCKE then observed, that the bill contained an appropriation for continuing the work at the Pea Patch, on the Delaware river. He was aware that there was a report from the Engineer on the subject, and that the House was told that the fort was in progress; so they were told many years since. And, after vast sums had been expended, it was discovered, on examination, that the officer who superintended the work had disobeyed his orders, departed from all the plans furnished him, and, in a word, had spoiled the fort. A court martial

called a Factory Department, and he had a distinct recollection that, among the expenses charged, was a considerable item for limes, lemons, London Particular, and Teneriffe. He presumed that these articles had since been dispensed with. He remembered also a charge of $1,000 for a blacksmith. The Committee of Ways and Means at that time assured the House that measures should be taken to lessen the contingent expenses of the Department, and that assurance led him to move the reduction he now proposed. It must be recollected that the present bill does not include the expense of the Indian Agent and all his Clerks. It was very easy for the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, when proposing an appropriation to this House to say the Department asks for it, and that bere is the letter from the Head of the Department, as a

FEB..9, 1825.]

warrant.

But answers of this sort gave little satisfac-be made to the House of the grounds on which the item tion to his mind. He should never forget the London Particular.

The amendment was rejected.

After these bills were reported to the HouseMr. HAMILTON renewed his motion for making an appropriation for a school of practice for the Light Artillery, and earnestly pressed it upon the attention of the House.

of appropriation to which he alluded had been introduc. ed into that bill; but he had since discovered that he had misunderstood the honorable chairman, who had only engaged that those explanations should be given, if they were required by the House. Mr. F's absence yesterday had prevented him from asking the explanation. He referred to that clause of the bill which appropriates 20,000 dollars for arrearages under the treaty with the Creek Indians, of 1804, ratified in 1824, and, also, 1000 dollars for the annuity under said treaty, for the current year

Mr. ARCHER observed, in support of the amendment, that, when it had been offered in committee, by his friend from South Carolina, it had been voted down without any objection stated. He was confident this [Mr. FORSYTH was about to enter upon a full statement could have happened only from the House not consider of the facts in relation to this subject, with the reasons ing with proper attention the object presented. When which compelled him to resist the appropriation, when compared with the object for which it was intended, the the Speaker suggested that, on account of the near apappropriation was moderate indeed. If we have any mili-proach of the hour at which the House would be obliged tary establishment at all, we ought to give it efficiency. And if it was undeniably true. that, with respect to the establishment generally, that this could only be done by providing proper instruction, it was true a fortiori in respect to artillery.

What was that branch of our army if left without instruction, and what use was there of having artillery at all, and of appropriating for its support, if the men who composed it were wholly unqualified for their duty, from the want of means of instruction? He had said that the sum was moderate. He asked whether any sum could be considered too large with reference to the object. What is the sum asked? Only nine thousand dollars. How is it to be disbursed? In any new salaries, or any increase of pay? No; $7,000 of it was to be laid out in horses, which, in themselves, would be worth the money, besides furnishing opportunity for instruction, both in artillery discipline and in cavalry drill. The United States would get the value of its money, besides getting that which was invaluable. Could any one doubt the utility of the object? It was recommended by the President of the United States; it was recommended by the War Department; it was recommended by the committee, which is the appropriate organ of this House in relation to Military Affairs. It comes recommended by all who ought to know whether it is proper or not; and, with all this force before them, would the House refuse? Refuse to grant $9,000 when 7,000 of it was to be invested in property! He trusted not.

The question was then taken on the amendment proposed by Mr. HAMILTON, and decided in the negative-76 to 61.

And the bills were then ordered to a third reading.

to go into another business of great importance, the
honorable member from Georgia had better move to lay
the bill on the table, if he wished it farther amended.
Mr. FORSYTH accepted the suggestion of the Speaker,
and made the motion that the bill lie for the present on
the table.]

The bill was ordered to lie on the table accordingly.
On motion of Mr. TAYLOR, it was

Ordered, That, when the members of the Senate appear, this day, in the Chamber of the House of Representatives, the President of the Senate shall be introduced by the Speaker to a seat in the Speaker's chair, and the Senators shall be invited to occupy the seats assigned them in front of the chair.

THE INVESTIGATING COMMITTEE.

that subject, made the following report:
Mr. P. P. BARBOUR, from the Select Committee on

munication of the Speaker, of the 3d inst. report:
The select committee, to which was referred the com-

the duty imposed upon them by the House, they direct-
That, upon their first meeting, with a view to execute
ed their chairman to address a letter to the Hon. GEORGE
KREMER, informing him that they would be ready, at a
particular time, therein stated, to receive any evidence
charges referred to in the communication of the Speak-
or explanation he might have to offer, touching the
er, of the 3d inst.; their chairman, in conformity with
this instruction, did address such a letter to Mr. KREMER,
who replied that he would make a communication to
the committee; accordingly, he did send to them,
through their chairman, a communication, which accom-
panies this report, marked A, in which he declines to
appear before them, for either of the purposes mention-
ed in their letter, alleging that he could not do so, with-
out appearing either as an accuser or a witness, both of
which he protests against. In this posture of the case,
the committee can take no further steps. They are
aware that it is competent to the House to invest them
with power to send for persons and papers, and by that
means, to enable them to make any investigation which
might be thought necessary; and if they knew any rea-
son for such investigation, they would have asked to be
clothed with the proper power; but not having, them-
selves, any such knowledge, they have felt it to be their
duty only to lay before the House the communication
which they have received.

A.-(MR. KREMER'S LETTER.)

GENTLEMEN: I have received your note of yesterday, in which you inform me that you will meet at 10 o'clock this morning, and will then be ready to receive any evi dence, or explanation, I may have to offer, touching the charges referred to in the communication of the Speaker, of the 3d inst. Placed under circumstances unprecedented, and which I believe not only interesting to my

H. of R.]

Report on the Speaker's Appeal.

[FEB. 9, 1825.

self, but important, as connected with the fundamental the admission which I may seem to have made of its juprinciples of our Government, I have reflected, with much deliberation, on the course which duty to myself, and my constituents required me to adopt. The result of this reflection is, that I cannot, consistently with a proper regard to those duties, assent to place myself before your committee, in either of the attitudes indicated in your note. The object of the committee does not distinctly appear from your note, but I may infer from its contents, connected with the extraordinary and unprecedented proceedings in this case, that it is to hold me responsible, through a committee of the House of Representatives, for a letter, dated the 25th of January last, addressed to the Editor of the Columbian Observer, and published in his paper of the 28th, which was intended to communicate, through that channel, information which I deemed interesting to my constituents, and very important to be known to the whole American people at this peculiar crisis. Thus viewing the subject, I cannot perceive any principle of power in the Constitution, which can give the House of Representatives, and, consequently, a committee created by it, jurisdiction over me as the writer of that letter; it neither involves a question of contempt of the House, nor an impeachment of an officer of the Government under the Constitution; and I can discover no authority by which the House can assume jurisdiction in such a case. If the authority of the House extended to acts of this kind, no limitation could be prescribed to its power, and it may reach the publisher as well as the writer, and extend to every member of the Government, as well as the Speaker of the House of Representatives. But it is not only the unconstitutionality of the power which forbids me from appearing before you ; placed as I am, I cannot but perceive the dangerous consequences, as well as its unconstitutional character.

Should I yield to such authority, I would be made amenable to a tribunal, which, thus constituted, has no prescribed limitation to its rules of proceeding, and which is alike unlimited in the nature and extent of the punishment it may inflict-nor can I be ignorant of the fact, that this body, thus unlimited in its rules, and in the extent of its powers, is at all times, but more especially at a crisis like the present, subject, by its very constitution and the nature of its functions, to be acted upon by some of the most powerful passions that actuate the human breast, which unfit it to perform in that cool and deliberate manner, the duties which properly belong to a court and jury. If it should be considered as proper that members be held responsible here for the communication of their opinions out of the House, on public men and public affairs, it would be much more safe that they should be placed at once under the operation of the sedition law; and, so far as the members of this House are concerned, the repeal of that famous law might be considered as a calamity, rather than a blessing. Thus regarding the constitutional power of the House, and the nature of that which is proposed to be exercised in my case, I have determined, under a deep sense of duty to myself and my constituents, not to submit to a procedure fraught with such dangerous consequences. I therefore protest most solemnly against the assumption of any jurisdiction, either by the committee or the House of Representatives, that shall jeopardize my right to communicate freely to my constituents whatever I may believe necessary for the public good. It is not my intention, in the slightest degree, to impeach the character either of the committee or the House, for which I have the greatest respect, and the authority of which, within its constitutional sphere, I regard it my pride and my duty to sustain. In refusing to submit to the authority of the House, as the writer of the letter before alluded to, it may be proper to remark, in explanation of

risdiction. Whatever assent I may have given, was done hastily, relying on the conscious rectitude of my conduct, and regarding my own case without having reflected duly on the dangerous principles involved in the proceeding, and cannot therefore be considered as a waiver of my right. The committee will observe, that the honorable Speaker, in his card, had chosen to make this matter a personal question with the then unknown writer of the letter. After due reflection, I determined at all hazards not to conceal the fact of being the author of the letter, and did not expect, by this disclosure, to enable the honorable Speaker to place me under the jurisdiction of the House. His appeal was sudden and unexpected, and, if any admission was made, without due regard to all the circumstances and principles of the case, it could be no matter of surprise. In declining the ju risdiction of the committee and the House, I feel the authority of another tribunal, before which I shall cheerfully appear, and bring forward, forthwith, those facts and circumstances, which, in my opinion, fully authorizes the statements contained in my letter. These I shall spread before my constituents, to whom I am amenable for all my conduct while I am honored with a seat in this House, and I shall never hesitate, when the correctness of my conduct is brought in question, to attempt my vindication before them; and, while sustained by them, and the conviction of my own conscience, I shall never be deterred from the performance of my duty here or elsewhere. In presenting my protest, I have gone on the supposition that it was the intention of the House, in raising a committee, to hold me responsible to its ju risdiction, as the writer of the letter which has caused the present proceeding. There is, however, another view of the subject, which deserves notice. It may be inferred, from the note of the committee, that it is not so much its intention, in requesting my attendance, to take jurisdiction over me, as to avail themselves of my testimony, which the Speaker has requested to have investigated by the House. In this view, my objection to attending is no less decisive than the one already considered. It would always afford me pleasure, when imperious duty did not forbid, to give all the information in my power to an investigation, which may be deemed by the House important to the character of any of its members; but, circumstanced as I am, it is manifest, if I should appear before the committee, I must be consi dered not so much in the light of a mere witness as that of an accuser, presenting charges against the Speaker to the House, and those charges not the specific statements contained in my letter, but the more general and indefinite ones into which the Speaker has sought an inquiry. It is manifest that the difference will be great between the attitude in which I should thus be placed and the one in which I now stand, and which duty to myself and my constituents forbid me to abandon. In coming to this determination, I am not governed by any disposition to retract or modify any thing contained in my letter, which was written under a conviction of its being true and important to be known. But there are many things which we are bound to communicate to those we represent, which prudence and duty would both forbid being presented to the House, in the form of accusations. This will be manifest when we reflect that even this House may not at all times be free from the vice of pas sion or the taint of corruption. Those who have read the history of human frailty, will require no proof of this assertion. If this view be just, which, I think, cannot be questioned, it must be manifest that a member of this House may be placed under such circumstances as to make it his highest duty to speak freely and fully, even of the House itself, to those he represents, when it would be madness and folly to present charges for

H. of R. & Sen.]

Mr. McLane,
Kent,

Randolph,

Election of President.-On the Judiciary.

Mr. Cook,

Owen,
Scott.

Mr. WEBSTER, of Massachusetts, was appointed by those Tellers who sat at one table, and Mr. RAN DOLPH, of Virginia, by those at the other, to announce the result of the ballotting. After the ballots were counted out, Mr. WEBSTER rose, and said

"Mr. Speaker. The Tellers of the votes at this table have proceeded to count the ballots contained in the box set before them. The result they find to be, that

there are

7 votes,
4 votes."

[FEB. 10, 1825.

opinion of a single Judge is final, where the sum involv ed, inclusive of costs, amounts to no more than two thousand dollars. A decision of this nature is conclusive in most cases in which the great mass of the community are interested. Whatever may be the virtue or talents of an individual Judge, we possess no sufficient without which a free, a gallant, and enlightened public guarantee for the satisfactory administration of justice, than I am to detract from the merits of our Judiciary; can never be content. No person, sir, is less disposed but other plans are contemplated. A radical change in our judicial system, proposed by some members of the Senate, is urged as a good reason for delay.

For JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, of Massachusetts, 13 votes, For ANDREW JACKSON, of Tennessee, This radical change, I believe, sir, has been contemFor WILLIAM H. CRAWFORD, of Georgia, plated for many years, and yet we discover no rational Mr. RANDOLPH, from the other table, made a state- prospect of success; it is intolerable that nine states in ment corresponding with that of Mr. WEBSTER, in the our Union are to be disfranchised, laboring under the inefacts, but varying in the phraseology, so as to say that only to a portion of our vast and growing population. quality and disadvantages of having a system confined Mr. Adams, Mr. Jackson, and Mr. Crawford, had receiv. The change spoken of is designed to render the Sued the votes of so many states, instead of so many votes. The SPEAKER then stated this result to the House, preme Court independent of circuit duties, and to locate its officers within a range of ten miles square. Three and announced that JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, having a majority of the votes of these United States, was duly this Court be requested to communicate to us a full reyears ago, I submitted a proposition, that the Judges of elected President of the same, for four years, commenc-port relative to the merits and disadvantages of the preing with the 4th day of March next.

were entertained, lest the views of this distinguished sent system. This request was denied me. Fears tribunal might influence the course of Congress. I en

On motion of Mr. TAYLOR, of New York, a committee was ordered to be appointed, to notify the President of the United States, and the President elect, of the re-tertained no such apprehensions. I had sufficient consult of the ballot.

And then the House adjourned.

[When the fact of Mr. Adams having 13 votes was an nounced by the Tellers, some clapping and exultation took place in the galleries, and some slight hissing followed. The House suspended its proceedings until the galleries were cleared.]

IN SENATE-THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 10. The Senate proceeded, as in committee of the whole, to the consideration of the bill "to amend the Judicial system of the United States, and to provide for three additional Circuit Courts."

Mr. R. M. JOHNSON, of Kentucky, began by saying he should be as brief as it should be in his power, in the remarks he had to offer, on the explanation of the bill, and in support of the measure which it proposed. The object of the bill, said Mr. J. embraces the creation of three additional Circuits and the appointment of three additional Circuit Judges, to be members of the Supreme Court of the United States. Should the bill pass into a law, it will, of course, increase the number of the Judges of that court, from seven to ten. The present judicial arrangement leaves six Western states without a representative in the Supreme Court, and without an atom of advantage from the circuit system. As to the seventh circuit, embracing Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee, this may be viewed as in a similar condition, since the duties of the Circuit Judge, requiring him to perform the annual round of more than 3,000 miles, leaves to him very little leisure for the investigation and reflection which are essential to correctness and despatch in judicial proceedings. The nine Western states have a deep interest in the present question. They may be considered as equally, I might say unrighteously, deprived of those immunities which every other section of our confederacy has the felicity to share.

fidence in my own judgment to believe that I should discharge the duty I owe to my country, and I possessed equal confidence in the talents, integrity, and experi ence of the venerated judges themselves. I introduced this self-same bil, the last session; and yet, it was impossible to procure its being acted upon, although the Senate was in session nearly six months. We were told that there was safety in delay. The contemplated change was again pressed upon us as a reason why this system should not be adopted. I had always been of opinion that delay in the operation of justice was not only unnecessary, but dangerous. At a very early period, during the present session, I presented the subject for the serious consideration of the Senate, and we are still informed that a little delay will not materially af fect the question. It must be put off until the next session. Thus we dance round the circle of the yearsession after session succeeds, and the Western States utter the voice of discontent, and call for their reasonable rights, unheard or unregarded. Sir, I contend that it is time, high time, that something should be done.

The measure proposed plainly involves the comparative merits of the two plans that are suggested. My wish, and it is the result of the most deliberate consideration, is to increase the judicial circuits so as to embrace the whole of our Union, and to give to the West their due representation in the Supreme Court of the United States; this will augment the number of the supreme judges to ten. The other plan is, to separate circuit duties from those of the Judges of the Supreme Court, and to concentrate the latter in their chamber in the Capitol. Provided the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and that of the inferior courts of the Union, were confined to objects purely national, I should realize much less difficulty, in the plan of having a few judges to constitute a Supreme Court, and to restrict them exclusively to the discharge of such high duties as become an appellate tribunal, except where the conSir, said Mr. J. the present proposition rests not alone stitution itself has invested them with original jurisdicon considerations of expediency, but upon the princi- tion. Perhaps I should concur in it. I refer in this ples of equal rights and impartial justice. The circum- remark to such cases as arise out of the Laws of Nations, stances of the nine Western states demand the unhesitat- as relate to treaties with foreign powers, the revenue ing interposition of Congress. What room can be left for laws, the concerns of the admiralty, maritime causes, and equivocation and doubt, when nothing is solicited but all controversies of a similar character. But so long as what is enjoyed by other portions of the community? It the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts extends to cases will be recollected, that under the present unequal sys---inuumerable cases of a municipal character, involving tem, in all causes decided in the District Courts, the state-laws, state-constitutions, and, in fact the control