« ForrigeFortsett »
is to be made, and extends beyond and around it. By this treaty the Wafford Settlement is conveyed to the U. S. if it never was before ? for it will not be pretended that when a large tract is conveyed by a treaty, a small tract in the centre of it is to be excepted from the conveyance, unless express stipulation to that effect is contained in the treaty itself. The latter treaty establishes a new boundary line. It makes full cession to the U. S. and now, in 1824, they claim a stipulation from the U. S. to give them an annuity for granting a part of this very land. Such are the circumstances on which I #. my opposition to this item of appropriation. I eel no great zeal on the subject, but have considered it my duty to lay the subject before the House. Mr. M'LANE, of Delaware, observed in reply, that it was his duty to state the facts on which the Committee of Ways and Means had recommended an appropriation to carry this treaty into effect. It might be considered a matter of just surprise, that it should be asked whether this House will appropriate a sum of money, solemnly and explicitly pledged in a treaty, solemnly and deliber. ately ratified. The subject was important in its bearings, and he trusted that the House would deliberate before they established a precedent which might have important consequences. In order to the successful carrying on of the system of our Government, it was necessary that each branch of it should confine itself to its own sphere, and should give to the other branches that degree of importance which was their just due. The Constitution had assigned to the President and Senate the power of making treaties, whether with foreign nations or with the Indian tribes. When a treaty had been constitutionally made and ratified, this House is bound, by the strongest obligations, to make the necessary provision for carrying it into effect. He would not say that this duty was always and absolutely imperative. Yet the reasons must be strong indeed, which justify the House in a refusal to do so. The present treaty had been made, as was stated, in 1804; but, from causes which fully appear from the documents submitted to this House by the Executive Department, it was not ratified until 1824. As soon as it was ratified, a communication was addressed, by the Department of War, to the Committee of Ways and Means, requesting an appropriation to carry it into effect. The committee hesitated in complying ; they saw that the ratification had not taken place till 20 years after the treaty, and there were arrearages of $20,000. They wished to have this more fully accounted for; and, accordingly, no appropriation was presented to this House at the last session. The Executive Department was called on for information : a communication had since been made, and laid before the committee, by which their doubts were entirely removed; and, in consequence of which, they now recommend the appropriation. The Cherokees were in possession of this land within the limits of Georgia, in 1804. Their lands were intruded on by citizens either of that state or some other; and an application was, in consequence, made by the Cherokees to the Unitel States to dispossess the intruders. The Government of the United States felt that it was their duty to do so. Orders were issued accordingly, and, military force sent to put them into execution. When the troops arrived on the spot, they found that the settlers, for themost part, had crops then growing, and not gathered; and the officers interceded with the Cherokees to delay the removal of the intruders until their crops could be gathered in, and finally succeeded in persuading them to sell the land to the United States. The Government accordingly issued a commission to Messrs. Meigs and Smith, to negotiate for the purchase. A treaty was held, in which the Indians agreed to sell, and the commissioners to buy their land. The terms were as have been stated. They were to receive $5000 in cash, and an annuity of $1000. As soon as this treaty was
made, the Indians abandoned their land, and the settlers
were suffered to remain, and others to enter. The In. dians executed the treaty in good faith, and the only question that we ought to have any difficulty in deciding, would be, not whether they are entitled to receive the arrearages of the annuity, but whether we ought not to allow them interest for the whole time it has not been paid. The committee propose only the principal, with. out interest. Supposing the treaty had been ratified in 1806, would any gentleman then have said that the Go. vernment ought not then to execute it Why was it not ratified ?. It was not the fault of the Indians, but of the United States. The documents will show that it was the fault of our own Government. Mr. Jefferson, in his letter, so far from depending on loose recollections, says, that the treaty ought to have been ratified. [Here Mr. M“L. quoted the letter.] He declares that the treaty is genuine. The letter of Col. McKee, now a member on this floor, proves that the treaty was made, for he was a witness to it. Mr. Jefferson says that the transaction is “well remembered,” and it turns out to be a fact, that the treaty itself was found in the War Office. Mr. Jef. ferson expressly says, “the treaty had all my approba. tion.” The treaty then has been fulfilled by the Indians; it was not ratified, because it was mislaid; it has since been found, and has been ratified, and, under these circumstances, the House is called to appropriate. The gentleman from Georgia asks if the President ought to go to Mr. Jesterson for his recollections on this subject? Sir, this question might have been proper enough in the Senate, and at the time when the ratification of the treaty was under consideration, but it certainly is not a question for us to settle now. The President went to him as to a creditable and highly respectable witness; but, as the treaty has since been ratified, the question is precluded. The gentleman says that this tract is included in a subsequent grant of the Cherokees. That is true—but was the price also included ? A negotiation was set on foot with that tribe, for a large tract of land, and this tract happened to lie within the boundary; but is it just that it should not therefore be paid for If the arrears are great, it is not the fault of the poor Indians; every gentleman knows how humble is their situation; they were, in a manner, forced into the sale of their lands by the interposition of our troops. What means had these poor creatures to enforce a ratification of our treaty 2– The treaty has at length been found, and has been rati. fied. And now, our only duty is, to make all haste to do them justice. Mr. FORSYTH again rose, and observed, that a curious question presented itself in relation to the different branches of this government, viz: whether, when the President and Senate have entered into a contract, this House may refuse to carry it into effect. His opinion on this question was well known. I hold not only that this House has the power, but that it is its duty, to inquire into the propriety of such contracts, and, whenever the public interest requires it, to interpose and prevent their fulfilment. He took it for granted, if this House was satisfied that the demand to carry the treaty into ef. fect was a gross fraud on the United States, it will not give the means of fulfilling the treaty. For himself, he had no doubt that the whole originated in gross error, and time should at least be allowed for a farther investigation. The gentleman from Delaware laid the whole stress of his argument on Mr. Jefferson's letter, and Mr. Jefferson's recollections and opinions seemed to be the ground on which the President and Senate went, in ratifying the treaty. Mr. Jefferson says, indeed, that the treaty had his approbation, but justice to that distinguished officer requires me to come to an opposite conclusion, and from the face of his letter, I deny that this treaty had his approbation. The price paid for the land is equal to its value at this day! It is six times as much as has cver been given for any Indian land! Two ques
Feb. 10, 1825.]
tions were asked Mr. Jefferson; the first is, Whether the treaty is genuine He says that it is, and of this there can be no doubt. The second is, Whether the omission to ratify it was accidental or intentional To this he replies that he does not know. But, actuated by a desire to take to himself every degree of blame which can justly attach to him, he represents it as accidental. But the treaty never had, or could have had, his approbation.— It is not correct that the lands of the Cherokees were intruded upon by the citizens of Georgia, nor were they in possession of the Cherokees, when the treaty was formed, but they were in dispute, and, as he had already stated, were occupied by persons whose claims, founded on grants under the treaty of 1783, have undergone a judicial investigation. This fact the gentleman from Delaware did not notice. The gentleman from Delaware says, the treaty was mislaid; but how does this agree with the other facts of the case ? The subject, according to his own showing, was one of great interest; the Cherokees had made a complaint to government, orders had been issued, and even military force had been employed. Is it conceivable that, if the Cherokees understood themselves to be entitled to an annuity, and that annuity was not paid to them, they would not complain * That the virtuous agent who presided over them would have been so negligent of what he owed to the nation, as not to make a complaint to this government 2 Yet the subject is not touched till he is dead! which was conclusive proof that there were reasons why the treaty was not ratified. The gentleman from Delaware had bespoke the favor of the House for the Cherokees, on account of their humble situation, and their inability to resist the power of this nation, and that, therefore, no great scrutiny was needful in making an appropriation for their benefit. Whatever might have been their humility formerly, Mr. F. said, they were no longer humble. They had been exalted by the kindness of government. None could forget the peculiar distinction with which they were treated in this city last winter. Yet they had mingled with the other tribes in resisting and frustrating the wishes of Congress, as expressed in the act of last session. He did not wish to urge this to their prejudice, but merely mentioned it as a countervailing consideration to the appeal made by the gentleman from Delaware to the feelings of the House on this question. The gentleman says that the omission was accidental, and that the House may execute the treaty nudic pro time, but the House is not authorized to do so, because evidence is no doubt in existence, and can be procured, of the reason why the treaty was not ratified. If it shall be shown that Mr. Jefferson was not to blane, then the question will recur, How far are we bound by the mistakes of a subsequent administration, to carry this treaty into effect? For himself, he thought the House was not bound, and, as to the consideration of injustice, he insisted that the Cherokees were amply paid by the 5,000 dollars which they had already received—a price which exceeds the rate paid for any other lands purchased of the Indian tribes. Mr. WOOD, of New York, desired to know whethor the Indians were in possession of this land from 1804 to 1817 ? Or whether the United States took possession of it * Mr. FORSYTH stated, in reply, that those whom the Indians called intruders, were in possession of the land in 1804, and had been ever since. Mr. LIVINGSTON, of Louisiana, said, this motion presented an important question, on which he was not called on now, for the first time, either to form or express an opinion. About thirty years ago, he had made a motion, at the time of the ratification of a treaty negotiated by Mr. Jay, with Great Britain, on the discussion of which it was solemnly resolved that this House had the constitutional powers to grant or withhold its co-opera
“en in earrying a treaty into effect, whenever its execu
tion required the exercise of any powers confided to this branch of the constitution. But, in making the motion, which led to the operation of the powers of the House, he had never pretended that it ought to be exercised in any case but as a check upon some abuse of power, or to avoid a manifest and great evil to the state. The same ground was taken, as he understood, by all those who supported the powers of the House on that occasion, and that no one pretended that, in every stipution, made by the President and Senate, under the trea. ty-making power, which came before this House, they were to inquire into the mere expediency of the stipu. ation; and, if it were such as they might not have been inclined to make, that they were on that account alone, oble in refusing their agency in carrying it into ef. ect. Applying these principles to the present case, Was it such a one as would justify the exercise of this right? Is it not rather one that, if we were the proper constitutional organ for ratifying the treaty, would demand its execution A more urgent call on the honor, and justice, and humanity, of the nation, could scarcely be presented. Twenty years ago an intrusion had been made on the lands of a friendly tribe of Indians, contrary to express and highly penal laws of the United States. The Government had then the alternative of raising a force sufficient to remove the aggressors, or to satisfy the Indians by a purchase. They attempted the former —the settlers were ordered to remove, but the savages, with a moderation and humanity that would have done honor to a civilized nation, suffered the trespassers to remain until they could gather the corn they had planted. In the mean time, the Government, calculating perhaps, the difficulty and expense of breaking up the settlement, determined to endeavor to make a purchase. It was made. Of this there is no doubt—no dispute. How it was made, is another question. Whether the poor wretches yielded to the strong arguments of the troops who were among them—whether those troops found it easier to enforce a treaty than to remove the settlers, is not now the question. The treaty was made. Five thousand dollars were paid, and one thousand agreed to be annually paid. It was executed in the utmost good faith by the savage contracting party. The lands were given up, and the possession of the United States has never, from that time to this, been disturbed. A copy of the treaty, duly executed, was delivered to the head men of the nation; but the cops intended to be sent to Washington for ratification, never arrived. Last year, the Chiefs of the nation arrived at Washington, bringing with them their copy of the treaty, and demanding the payment of the annuity. The President, finding no such document on record, had recourse to secondary evidence—to a witness who, fom his station, his character, his accuracy, and perfect Yossession of all his mental faculties, could best elucidae the matterhe applied to the venerable man who was then President of the United States, to know, first whether he recollected whether such a treaty exised Secondly, whether any reasons had prevented him from submitting it to the Senate for ratification ? To this he answers, that he remembers the treaty—that, as it had his entire approbation, no reason could have existed to prevent him from submitting it to the Senate; and that he supposes it must have been mislaid in the War Office on its passage to him. This conjecture proved true; on search being made among the miscellaneous papers of that office, the treaty was found: it was sent by the present Chief Magistrate to the Senate, who, after examining all the circumstances of the case, advised its ratification. It was rutified, and we are now called on to interpose the extraordinary powers of the House to avoid the contract, by refusing an appropriation to carry it into effect. The reasons for this refusal are, that this delay in de
manding its ratification and the payment of the arrears, shows that there was either error or fraud, and of course, that Mr. Jefferson, when he says he entirely approved the treaty, was mistaken; that, in fact, he did not approve it, and that his objections must have been so strong as to prevent his even submitting it to the Senate. But, when we ask for the evidence of this mistake, in a wilness so well qualified in every way to give the most correct testimony, we are told that the price of the land was more than was ever before given for any Indian title. Sir, I think we had better not press this subject, lest we should find how very inadequate even the highest prices we have ever given, would be to the value of what we bought. But there were reasons in this case that might have made the purchase a cheap one, even at a much higher price. We must either have sent a stronger military force to dispossess the settlers, or purchase from the Indians at their own price. At any rate, the presumption arising from this circumstance, is much too weak to counteract the positive proof. But why did not the Indians insist on the ratification Sir, we might ask this question of the contracting party, if the contracting party were a civilized nation, regular. ly organized, and having its minister resident at our seat of Government. But with what force can it be urged against a horde of ignorant savages, trusting to our honor for the regularity and validity of the contracts we made? What did they know of your Senators and your ratifications? They only looked to the stipulations made by your commissioners—they knew that they were to yield up their land to the white settlers, who had taken it— and they did so ; they received part of the consideration which we were to give, and performed the whole of what they stipulated to do—they gave all. Sir, if this transaction had been made even with a civilized nation, the want of a ratification could never be objected to them, after they had suffered us to remain in possession for twenty years. What force, then, can it have, when urged against men utterly ignorant of the forms of diplomacy, or even the meaning of the term 2 Suppose it a case between individuals, in which, on a contract for the sale of lands, part of the purchase was paid, and possession delivered, and kept for twenty years; what tribunal on earth would refuse to enforce the contract, if made by an attorney, because the principal had not ratified it in form But a ratification in deed is full a binding—the payment of the money—the retaining of the possession—the settlement of peace with the nation—were all implied ratifications; and the act of the President and Senate, latterly, is an express one. Besides, if not binding on us, it cannot be on them; and would we be willing now to surrender the land, 80,000 atres, on receiving our $5,000. Mr. L. believed then, this case was so far from justifying the extraordinary exercise of constitutional power to refuse the appropriation—that it was on the contrary one in which humanity, Justice, and honor, concurred, in demanding the execution of the treaty. The question was now about to be put, when Mr. CAMPBELL, of Ohio, (chairman of the committee on Private Land Claims,) rose, to inquire at what time the Cherokees had applied for the ratification of the treaty, and whether they had asked, at an early day, for the annuity stipulated. The case, as presented, was certainly a very singular one. He was inclined to believe that there had been among the Indians, two parties—the old men who were in favor of the treaty, and the young men, who were opposed to it. It was very
The Creek Treaty of 1804. \
possible that the Indians themselves did not expect it would be ratiied; but, if the treaty came on to this city, and was here accidentally mislaid until last year, he supposed congress ought to carry it into effect. The gentleman from Georgia lays great stress on the price, which he says was six times larger than that paid to other Indians, but, if he would examine the treaty, he |
LFeb. 10, 1825.
would find that there is one clause in it, which appears to give larger limits in the grant than those which he has described. Mr. COCKE, of Tennessee, (chairman of the Commit. tee on Indian Affairs,) said that his situation enabled him to answer the inquiry of the gentleman from Ohio. He had had frequent conversations with the Cherokee chiefs who attended at this city last winter; and it was then that they first applied to have the treaty ratified. Mr. Forsyth said, that he had taken painsto ascer. tain the fact concerning which the gentleman from Ohio, (Mr. CAMrbell,) had just inquired, and it did not ap: pear that the Indians had ever made any complaint about the non-payment of their annuity, or had ever as: plied to have the treaty ratified. It appears, indeed, that the treaty was sent on here; but another part of the document will show that there was a correspond. ence on the subject with the agent of the Cherokees; that the Indians were satisfied, and gave a larger cession of land, to prevent the complaints of the people of Georgia. [Here Mr F. quoted the documents to show that, in 1804, 63,000 acres were ceded, that in 1812, no complaint had been made, but an extension of the boun: dary line was granted, which he insisted was a proof that the Indians considered the $5000 as a full payment for the land.] It had been said by the gentleman from Delaware, that the non-payment, and the non-ratification, were th: fault of the Únited States. This position, said Mr. Fol positively deny. The Indians never asked the ratific” tion; they never complained of the non payment of the annuity. Their agent was here again and again; he must have been acquainted with the intontions of the President. He never applied; but the moment he dio the nation applies for the ratification of the treaty. * F. concluded by summing up the points of the argument, and briefly recapitulating his reasons against the appropriation. Mr. M'LANE briefly replied to Mr. Campbell, whose inquiry, he said, would be proper, if the question was now on granting interest; their demanding or not demanding the annuity might affect such a question, but certainly had nothing to do with the principal debt. He asked if their not applying would be a good argo ment, supposing the treaty had been ratified in 1805.
He dwelt with earnestness upon their helpless and hu
miliated condition, and strongly insisted on the obliga. tion of the Government, both from their justice an
magnanimity, to fulfil the treaty, while he was up, he would make one request, to which he desired the atten: tion of the House. It must be perceived by all, that to gentleman from Georgia has been laboring to show tho Mr. Jefferson did not do, what Mr. Jefferson himself says that he did; and that Mr. Jefferson did not think as Mr. Jefferson himself expressly says that he did. Mr. Jefferson says that the treaty “ had his full approbation:
the gentleman from Georgia says that it had not. And how does he show this? He tells us, that if Mr. Jefferson was so much interested, how could it happen that the treaty slumbered for so many years? Sir, there is a very good reason why the United States should have slumbered over this treaty. Their object was acco: plished. The intruders were driven of the land. The Indians had given it up. It was quietly in their hands. But, sir, if the intruders had remained, or the Indians had refused to surrender the lands, you would have then found the United States proceeding with a quick ster. But both the Indians, the intruders, and we, slept. Whose fault was it? Sir, it was ours. The gentleman objects to the price; but, sir, the United States were not purchasing land, they were purchasing the peace and tranquillity of the Southern country. We all know what is the character of these squatters or settlers, or by whatever other names they are called; that they can: not be dispossessed but by force; an armed force wo
sent to dispossess then, and, if they had proceeded to extremities, blood must have flowed, and a far greater sum have been expended than would have been equal to this difference of price. This was the true consideration of the treaty, and not the land. Mr. CAMPBELL, of Ohio, observed, that, if the gentleman from Delaware was as well acquainted with the Indian character as many gentlemen in this House, he would have known that Indians are never slow in claiming what they consider as their due. If they did not apply, it was certainly a great presumption that they did not suppose themselves to have any right. The gentleman who writes one of the letters in these documents, is well acquainted with the Cherokees. There are many good scholars among them; some who cannot only read and write, but who understand composition as well as any white men. Would these have been so sluggish if they knew they had a right to the annuity 2 It was incredible. He admitted that there was a treaty, and that it was partly carried into effect, but he thought it plain, from the circumstances, that it must have afterwards been annulled by some arrangement with the War Department. At all events, the Indians must have been under this impression, or they would have insisted on its fulfilmaent. Mr. CULPEPER, of North Carolina, said, that the argument from the non-application by the Indians, would be equally good against a note of hand, which was suffered to lie for a long time without being applied for. This certainly did not touch the validity of the note. He thought the argument lay within a small compass. The first question was, Has the o been made * The second, Have we received the land 2 The third, Have we paid the money To the first question, we must reply, Yes, the treaty has been made. To the second, we must also reply, Yes, we have received the land. And to the third, there could be but one answer. We have not paid the money. If we suppose we have, then it is for us to prove we have. He did not profess to be acquainted with law, but this seemed to be the dictate of common sense. Mr. INGHAM, of Pennsylvania, said that, it might be worthy of consideration, whether some explanation could not be given why the Cherokees had not demanded the annuity. He thought the House was in possession of circumstantial proof enough to show that they had not abandoned their claim. The chairman of the Committee of Indian Affairs had had joint conversations of the Cherokee agents, who were here last winter. They say that the treaty was lost among them as well as among us; that they applied here for a copy of it, but it could not be found. They then appointed a day and a place in their own nation, in which all the persons of their tribe, who had public papers in their hands, were required to bring them forward for examination. One old man brought a bundle of papers, among which the treaty was at length discovered. . Then, and not till then, the Cherokee nation had official evidence of their claim against the United States. Their failure in demanding this claim before, ought not, therefore, to preclude their right. Mr. wild E, of Georgia, observed, that he had not sufficient information to enable him to vote for the present appropriation. He could not vote for it unless he had higher evidence than had yet been produced, that the treaty did receive the sanction of the former President. He thought there must be entire evidence in existence—he presumed there must be a correspondence on this subject on the file of the War Department; and if that was destroyed, that it must exist in some part of the papers relating to Indian Affairs. On the constitutional question, be would observe, that the state of Georgia had no direct interest in resisting this appropriation. if congress choose to give this sum to the Cherokee In
dians by way of gratuity, Georgia can have no objections; she disdains any obligation under this treaty. In 1817, that state claimed land lying within the limits of this settlement. In 1824, the limits of the state were narrowed, and that land was ceded to Indians which had been before added to the state of Georgia. It had been insisted on in the treaty of Ghent, as a reason against granting certain portions of our Territory which were claimed by Great Britain, that the General Government had no authority to cede any portion of the territory of a state. But, in the case to which he referred, the Government certainly did this. Georgia, however, never acknowledged it. Before he sat down, he wished to ask the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Meaus, Whether any inquiry had been made for the correspondence with the Indian agent. Mr. M'LANE, in reply, quoted the documents to show that they contained all the information which the Government possessed on this subject. The question was put on striking out the appropriation, and decided in the negative.—Ayes 25–Noes 99. The bill was then read a third time, and passed.
LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT ELECT.
Mr. WEBSTER, from the committee appointed for the purpose, yesterday, reported that the committee had waited on JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, of Massachusetts, and had notified to him, that, in the recent election of a President of the United States, no person having received a majority of the votes of all the electors appointed, and the choice having consequently devolved upon the House of Representatives, that House, proceeding in the manner prescribed in the Constitution, did yesterday choose him to be President of the United States, for four years, commencing on the fourth day of March next. And that the committee had received a written answer; which he presented to the House. The committee also, in further performance of its duty, had given information of this election to the President.
Gentlemen: In receiving this testimonial from the Representatives of the People, and States of this Union, I am deeply sensible to the circumstances under which it has been given. All my Predecessors in the high station to which the favor of the House now calls me, have been honored with majorities of the electoral voices in their primary colleges. It has been my fortune to be placed by the divisions of sentiment prevailing among our countrymen on this occasion, in competition, friendly and honorable, with three of my fellew citizens, all
justly enjoying, in eminent degrees, the public favor;
and of whose worth, talents, and services, no one enter. tains a higher and more respectful sense than myself. The names of two of them were, in the fulfilment of the provisions of the constitution, presented to the selection of the House, in concurrence with my own; names, closely associated with the glory of the nation, and one of them, further recommended by a larger minority of the primary electoral suffrages than mine. In this state of things, could my refusal to accept the trust thus delegated to me, give an immediate opportunity to the people to form and to express with a nearer approach to unanimity, the object of their preference, I should not hesitate to decline the acceptance of this eminent charge, and to submit the decision of this momentous question again to their determination. But the Constitution itself, has not so disposed of the contingency which would arise in the event of my refusal; I shall, therefore, repair to the post assigned me by the call of my country, signified through her Constitutional organs; oppressed with the magnitude of the task before me, but cheered with the hope of that generous support from my fellow-citizens, which, in the vicissitudes of a life devoted to the service, has never failed to sustain me— confident in the trust, that the wisdom of the Legislative Councils will guide and direct me in the path of my off
H. of R. & S.] Road from Pensacolato St..?ugustine—Topographical Surveys. [Feb. 11, 1825.
cial duty, and relying, above all, upon the superintending Providence of that Being “in whose hand our breath is, and whose are all our ways.” Gentlemen: I pray you to make acceptable to the House, the assurance of my profound gratitude for their confidence, and to accept yourselves my thanks for the friendly terms in which you have communicated to me their decision. JOHN QUINCY ADAMS. Washington, 10th February, 1825.
ROAD FROM PENSACOLATO ST. AUGUSTINE.
On motion of Mr. CALL, of Florida, the House went into committee of the whole, Mr. ToMLINsox in the chair, on the bill to provide additional appropriations to complete the public road from Pensacola to St. Augustine, in Florida; and also on the bill to authorize the surveying and laying out of a road from St. Mary's river to Tampa Bay, in the Territory of Florida. Mr. C. moved to fill the blank for the sum appropriated by the first of these bills, with $8000; which was carried. He then moved to fill the blank in the second bill, with $12,000.
On this motion, Mr. M'COY inquired of the delegate from Florida, with respect to the necessity for the road, its proposed length, and whether the present sum would be sufficient to complete it.
Mr. CALL, in reply, requested the reading of a letter at the Clerk's table. He then rose in his place, and stated, that, at last session, a road had been authorized to be made from Cape Sable, the Southern extremity of Florida, to the Bay of Tampa, which is on its Western coast, and also the marking out a road from St. Augustine to Pensacola. It was now proposed to complete the latter road, which had been marked out, and also to extend the road now running from Cape Sable to Tampa Bay, northwardly, from Tampa Bay to St. Mary's river, where it would meet a road now existing in Georgia. its length would be about two hundred miles, the whole of which distance it would pass through the public lands, and would thereby greatly enhance their value. He adverted to the difficulty of suppressing piracy in the Gulf of Mexico, Tampa Bay (which was the best harbor in the South of Florida,) being a notorious rendezvous for pirates, as well as for fugitive slaves from Georgia, the Government had found it necessary to establish a military post there. The post, which is to be a permament one, was now completely isolated. Neither road nor trace led to it, and it had no means of communicating with the Government itself, except by a long and dangerous sea voyage, which would cost more in a single year than the whole sum now asked for this road. Another consideration was that of passing along the coast; it ran near to numerous inlets, now the haunts of pirates and slaves. The presence of this road would be an effectual, and the only effectual means, of breaking up their resort to these places. In a state of war, the Bay of Tampa would be a very important post. As such, the Government had selected it; and it was manifest, that, unless a road was formed, by which troops could march for its relief, it must fall an easy prey as soon as it should be invested by a maritime enemy. The country through which it is to pass, is one of the most fertile regions of the South. Nothing was wanted but a highway, to ensure its rapid settlement. He hoped, therefore, that, whether the road was considered as providing for the defence of a distant and vulnerable frontier, or as calculated to increase the value of the public lands, the sum necessary for its construction would readily be granted by the House. He added, in conclusion, that the plan had been examined by the Committee on Roads and Canals, and received its unanimous approbation.
The blank was then filled accordingly.
The Committee then rose, and reported both bills, and they were ordered to be engrossed for a third reading to-morrow.
IN SENATE–FRIDAY, Febau Any 11, 1825.
Mr. TAZEWELL submitted the following resolution: “Iresolved, That the President of the United States be requested to cause to be transmitted to J. C. CALHOUN, of South Carolina, Vice President elect of the United States, notification of his election to that office, and that the President of the Senate do make and sign a certificate in the words following, to wit: Be it known, That the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, being convened at the City of Washington, on the second Wednesday of February, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and twenty-five, the underwritten President of the Senate pro tempore, did, in the presence of the said Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and count all the votes of the Electors for a President and Vice President of the United States: Whereupon, it appeared that John C. Caluors, of South Carolina, had a majority of the votes of the Electors, as Vice President; by all which it appears that John C. CALuous, of South Carolina, has been duly elect. ed Vice President of the United States, agreeably to the Constitution. In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand, this day of February, 1825. And that the President of the Senate do cause the certificate aforesaid, to be laid before the President of the United States, with this resolution.” On motion of Mr. KING, of Alabama, the resolution was forthwith considered, and was agreed to.
The Senate, on motion of Mr. SMITH, took up the bill making appropriations for the Military Service for the year 1825. The Committee of Finance of the Senate, to which this bill had been referred, reported it with a proposition to amend it by striking out the following clause: “For making sūryeys, and carrying on the operations of the Board of Engineers, in relation to Internal Improvements, and in addition to an unexpended balance on hand, twenty-eight thousand five hundred and sixtyseven dollars. Mr. SMITH, (chairman of the Committee on Finance, said he was so unfortunate as not to coincide in opinion with the Committee on Finance, as regarded this amend. ment. It would be recollected that, at the last session of Congress, an act was passed, making an appropriation of $30,000, to enable the President to cause surveys to be made in different parts of the Union, with a view to internal improvements. Twenty thousand dollars of this appropriation had been expended, leaving a balance of $10,000 unexpended, and the present appropriation contemplated an addition of $28,567, to that balance:Congress, he said, had adopted the principle of making these surveys, and it would be very extraordinary if they should now, after having proceeded so far, and expend: ed so much, make an attempt to retrace their steps. it was on this ground that he had in the committee oppos: ed the proposed amendment, and he trusted the appropriation would not be stricken out. Mr. Johnson, of Kentucky, said, that, if he properly understood the proposition, it was to put a stop to a measure which had been commenced under the at thority of an act of the last session of Congress, and one which was of the utmost importance, as tending to facio litate the intercourse between the different parts of the Union, in relation to military and commercial affairs, and in the transportation of the mail. He expressed his u" ter astonishment at such a proceeding, and could scaro ly believe the evidence of his ears. it was, he said, the commencement of a great system of internal improvo. ment, and he presumed that, after it had been solemnly decided on that that system should be commenced, they could not, with any foundation of reason, retrace their