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

Special Session-Indian Expenditures in Minnesota.

NAVAL DEPOT IN NORTH CAROLINA. The following resolution, submitted by Mr. BADGER on the 17th instant, was considered and agreed to:

"Resolved, That the Secretary of the Navy be directed to inquire whether it will not be advantageous to the Govern ment of the United States to establish a naval depôt at Beaufort in North Carolina, and report to the Senate at the next session."

REPAIRING CAPITOL ROOMS.

The following resolution, submitted by Mr. JONES, of Iowa, on the 7th instant, was considered and agreed to:

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate pay the amount which may be allowed by the Committee to Audit and Control the Contingent Expenses of the Senate, for the expenses incurred during the last session, in repairing and fitting up for use two rooms in the basement of the Capitol.

PURSER WELCH.

Mr. COOPER. In the course of the examination before the committee of which the Senator from Texas [Mr. HOUSTON] was chairman, the committee appointed to investigate certain charges of fraud, there was some testimony given in relation to Purser Welch, by the late Secretary of the Navy. In that testimony, there was a single word which seemed to reflect upon Purser Welch. The committee has closed its labors and made its

report; the testimony which I hold in my hand, cannot therefore be made a part of the report of the committee; but, in justice to the individual against whom there seemed to be some implied censure, I desire that the note of Mr. Kennedy, the late Secretary of the Navy, explaining his testimony, may be read, so that it may go upon the Journal.

Mr. BORLAND. Before that letter is read, it is proper for me to say, that in the investigation of what were considered abuses, in the practices in Washington, with regard to getting bills passed through Congress and obtaining the payment of claims from the Government, the testimony of the late Secretary of the Navy, (Mr. Kennedy,) contained expressions which seemed at first to reflect unfavorably upon the conduct of Purser Welch, of the Navy. The committee in examining that case, however, came to the conclusion that Purser Welch had done nothing culpable in itself, nor designed to do so. The letter which is now offered, confirms that view of the committee, and explains more fully some of the expressions used in giving the testimony before the committee. It was brought to me yesterday by Purser Welch, with the request that it should be incorporated in the report of the committee; which would have been done, had not the committee reported and been discharged from further duty. I think it is but just that this public notice should be taken of the testimony of the late Secretary of the Navy. The letter was read as follows:

BALTIMORE, March 24, 1853. DEAR SIR: In my testimony before the committee of the Senate in reference to the moneys which were collected by Purser Weleh from the officers and crews of the Vincennes and Vandalia, as compensation to be paid for the procurement of the California law, passed at the first session of the last Congress, I took occasion to say that I was convinced, from my examination of the case, that Mr. Welch had no pecuniary interest in the transaction. I regarded his agency in the matter as reprehensible only for the effect such a practice might have on the character of the service and one which might lead to great abuses, and therefore as one that ought to be checked in future. I am persuaded that he acted in this affair solely from motives of friendship and without due consideration of the hazard to which it might expose him of being misrepresented and censured for his participation in it. I told him this in my interviews with him, and I was strongly impressed by everything that occurred at these interviews that he was entirely free from any other share in the agency than that of a disinterested purpose of serving a friend.

I make this statement with a view to guard Mr. Welch against any inference that he had any other concern in the transaction than that which I have mentioned; and I desire that it may be received as an addition to the testimony I have already given.

JOHN P. KENNEDY.

Very truly, my dear sir, yours, &c., Hon. Senator BORLAND.

INDIAN EXPENDITURES IN MINNESOTA. The Senate proceeded to the consideration of the resolution authorizing the Committee on Indian Affairs to delegate one of their number to proceed, during the recess of Congress, to Minnesota, for the purpose of taking the testimony of individuals in that Territory, in relation to certain charges against Governor Ramsay, connected with his

distribution of money to the Sioux Indians. The
pending question was on the amendment proposed
by Mr. ADAMS, that the Senate appoint a commit-
tee of three to make the proposed examination.

Mr. HUNTER. I think the amendment is
better than the original proposition. If we are
to have this investigation, it had better be done in
this way than by sending one individual. But 1
object to the policy of having committees sit during
the recess. I object not to this particular commit-
tee, but to any and all committees sitting in the
recess of Congress. I think it involves very grave
considerations. I think it is a practice which is
likely to involve us in disagreeable disputes with
the other House. Sir, the House of Representa-
tives have shown a disposition, for the last two or
three years, to have some concern in the matter of
our contingent fund. Now what powers do we
propose to give this committee, in relation to this
fund? Are they to have power to raise what com-
missions they choose, to send for witnesses in
order to investigate this matter; and how and what
are they to be paid? Are they to pay witnesses for
their expenses? And is all that to be done out of
the contingent fund? Is the President of the
Senate to decide what they shall be paid? Is the
Secretary of the Senate to decide, or is the chair-
man of the committee himself to decide what the
committee shall receive? We see how many em-
barrassing and difficult questions we bring up in
relation to that matter. Suppose we were to con-
tinue all our committees. I presume there are few
committees in this body which could not find prof-
itable occupation in the recess. Suppose we do
that; would it involve the necessity of paying those
committees out of the contingent fund of the Sen-
ate, during the recess, and by the action of the
Senate alone? Is it to be supposed that the House
of Representatives would not claim to interfere
when it came to a matter of that sort?

SENATE.

appoint a committee, or a sub-committee from the Committee on Indian Affairs, consisting of three members, to investigate, during the recess, the charges made against Governor Ramsay.

Mr. ADAMS. The proposition originally was, that one member of the committee be delegated to take the testimony. I moved to strike that out and insert, that the Senate appoint a committee of three.

I

Mr. COOPER. What I wish to say is, that the Indian Committee is not making any proposition of this kind, and I certainly am opposed to the committee which is proposed by the amendment, whether it is to be detailed from the Committee on Indian Affairs, or from the body of the Senate. I do not think there is any difficulty, if the Senate chooses to confer the power to do this, namely: to authorize the committee to pursue the investigation during the recess, by means of a commissioner to take testimony on interrogatories filed. That has been done in both Houses. During the last recess, one of the committees of the Senate undertook to send, and did send a committee or a commission to Mexico, to investigate certain matters in relation to charges pending against an individual who is now on his trial. I presume they did not, in that, transcend their duties. I think it would be altogether better to authorize the committee to continue the investigation in this way. Do this: authorize them to appoint a commissioner, as the courts appoint a judge or somebody else, to take testimony on interrogatories filed; and in order that it may not be lengthened out for a whole year, and increase the expense unnecessarily, let the witnesses be named, as I think we should be prepared to do in twentyfour hours. I think I know, myself, most of the witnesses that it would be necessary to call upon, in order to present the facts of this whole case to the body at its next meeting in December. Besides, sir, I believe there is an objection to think this would be the better course to pursue. such things in the country. I believe it is calcu- Certainly I am opposed to having a committee sit lated to bring us into disrepute in the public esti- during the recess; and I concur in every word utmation, and I would regard that as a calamity.tered by my friend from Virginia, [Mr. HUNTER,] We are but sixty-two individuals. It is true we have a voice in the total appropriation for the service of the country-some $50,000,000. We have, when the state of the public business in the House is considered, or rather the manner in which they conduct it, the greatest share in the legislation of the country. How important is it, therefore, to preserve appearances, to preserve the respect and esteem of the community, and to do nothing which shall bring us under a suspicion of seeking by any indirect means, to extend our pay and emoluments. I know that is not the intention of the Committee on Indian Affairs. I believe the committees would not seek employment except when they believed the public interest required it. But I am not the public. I cannot be blind to the mode in which these things are viewed outside of Congress. I believe we should resist everything which would throw us under such a suspicion as I have alluded to. Nor do I see the necessity of having any committee to look into these things. If investigations are to be had during the recess of the Senate, it would be far better to pass laws in respect to them, and to have the investigations made under the superintendence of the Executive, with a limitation by law, than to leave it to the discretion of a committee of the Senate, to be appointed to act in the recess.

Do our legislative powers continue after the Senate adjourns? Can we continue the legislative functions of a portion of this body after the Senate has adjourned? It seems to me very doubtful. I know it has been done in the case of the Library committee on some occasions, and in the case of the printing committee; but those were small matters, and they passed sub silentio, and were acquiesced in. But, to appoint so many committees as we are in the habit of appointing now, to sit in the recess, makes a graver question for consideration. I believe we had, during the last recess, three or four; and unless we put a check to this practice, the number will grow, and we shall see the practice of appointing committees to sit in the recess increase at each succeeding session.

Mr. COOPER. I am a member of the Committee on Indian Affairs; and I am not in favor of the resolution as I understand it will stand if amended as proposed. I believe it is proposed to

on the general propriety of continuing the functions of certain members of the body during the recess; though I think he was mistaken when he spoke of legislative functions attending them. It would be a quasi judicial function, such as is sometimes exercised by the body during the recess. But I certainly agree in the impropriety of continuing the committees during the recess, and there are many reasons besides those which he has stated, which may be urged against the practice.

Mr. BADGER. Besides the difficulty in the way of this mode of proceeding, thrown out by the Senators from Virginia and South Carolina the other day, it seems to me that there is still another. It was said that if the resolution in its original form were adopted, there would be no power in the member delegated by the Committee on Indian Affairs to take the testimony to compel the attendance of witnesses, or to punish a witness for contempt in case of his refusal to answer. That is true; but it is equally true with regard to a committee of the Senate, sitting in the recess of the Senate. Such a committee, if a man is called before them as a witness, and he refuses to come, or coming, refuses to answer, have no power to punish him, or compel him to answer. They must report to the House from which their commission is derived, and the authority of the House must be invoked to compel the requisite witness to discharge his duty; and if he still refuses, to inflict punishment. Therefore, if we should adopt this resolution, even as amended in the manner proposed by the Senator from Mississippi, and if the three gentlemen who compose the committee were to go into one of the States to proceed with the investigation, unless a witness was willing to proceed, they could not compel him. If he attended and refused to answer the interrogatories which they thought proper to put, they could not force him to answer. The consequence would be that it would depend entirely upon the pleasure of the persons called upon as witnesses, whether they could attend at all; and if they attended, how many and which interrogatories they would answer.

Now, sir, if this were an inquiry with regard to any general subject before the country as to matters of policy assisting the legislation of the country hereafter, that would not furnish so strong an

Special Session-Reading Secretary of the Senate.

cause when you undertake to examine a charge We cannot impeach. We cannot dismiss. We sition to it, but I have uniformly opposed the del

may pronounce a censure, and that is a judgment. egation of power to a single individual to be exer-
If such a proceeding was to originate in the House cised during the recess. I have not believed that
of Representatives, I could understand that it it was in the power of any committee to do it. I
would look to a purpose, or if it was laid before have not believed that it was in the power of the
the Executive, I could understand that there might Senate to confer the authority upon its committee.
be some purpose in view. As to having any aver- It is, therefore, distinctly from no objection to the
sion to the investigation I have none, for I know investigation, but from the belief that the power
nothing about Governor Ramsay or the other per- to grant the authority did not exist, and because
sons implicated; and in fact, if there has been a I think the practice which has commenced of ap-
delinquency, I would like the prosecution to go pointing special committees is a bad one and ought
on; but for the Senate to undertake the investiga- to be discontinued, that I have opposed it. I will
tion is inverting everything like the usage contem- suggest that so far as the motion to discharge the
plated by the Constitution in proceeding against committee is concerned, at the expiration of the
delinquents in office. The House of Represent-session the power of the committee will expire;
atives ought to originate and prosecute such pro- but at the same time I have no objection to the
ceedings; and if the inquiries are to go on with motion.
the view to the removal of the man censured, it
ought to be in the popular branch of the Govern-
ment. That was my reason for opposing the res-
olution. I did not oppose it because of any aversion
to the investigation.

Mr. HUNTER. For one I have opposed the proposition to raise the special committee. have no objection to the investigation, nor do I believe that the laying of this resolution on the table will prevent it. I have no doubt that the proper Executive authority will make it. I believe a Governor of the Territory will be appointed who ex officio will be Superintendent of Indian Affairs, and he will investigate the matter. I have no objection to that; but I am opposed to the policy, and I have endeavored to show that my opposition was not to this particular proposition, but that it was one of opposition to the policy of rais-plished, and therefore opposed it. I now renew ing select committees to sit during the recess of the Senate. That is the matter at which I am striking, and not at this particular investigation. I not only have no objection to the investigation, but I wish it to go on when it can be conducted properly. But I do not believe it is safe to pursue this practice of raising special committees, and if I had permitted this one to pass without opposition, I could not have objected to any other. I wish, if I can, to take the sense of the Senate in regard to the matter, for if we raise such committees at

32D Cong.....3D Sess.

of salary, I desired the reading secretary to be placed on an equality with the Chief Clerk, and not in a secondary position. I thought he deserved it. I believed it was necessary to enable the Secretary to procure the services of a suitable man. I do not believe a suitable man could be procured for a less compensation; and among the various extravagant expenditures of the Federal Government, we ought to expend at least a sufficient sum to have the proper organization of our desk. This was my view and no other. I am not tenacious about it. I do not wish to interfere with the Secretary in any way. As an evidence of the fact, I provide that he shall make his own selection. If had been dissatisfied with him in any way, and had desired to supersede his rights, I would have submitted a resolution to elect the officer. I have considered it due to the Secretary, on account of the construction which I understood some gentlemen have placed upon the resolution, to make this explanation.

Mr. MASON. I move to postpone the further consideration of the resolution until Monday. We want an Executive session.

The motion was agreed to.

RINGGOLD'S COAST OF CALIFORNIA.
The following resolution, submitted by Mr.
GWIN on the 17th instant, was taken up for con-
sideration:

"Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate be authorized to purchase one thousand copies of Ringgold's maps, charts, and sailing directions of the coast of California, for the use of the Senate: Provided, The price shall not exceed four dollars per copy."

Mr. BADGER. I have no other objection to the resolution except that we have not power to pass it. I do not know whether the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. BORLAND] recollects it; but by a provision contained in the deficiency appropriation bill of last session, it is expressly provided that no books shall be distributed to members of Congress, except such as are published by Congress as public documents, unless an appropriation had been by law previously made for the purpose.

Mr. MASON. The resolution will evidently lead to debate. I move to postpone its further consideration until Monday.

Mr. BORLAND. My attention has not been particularly called to that provision of the law. I had considered the subject only in reference to the value of the chart, of which I have very strong evidence before me. I have the testimony borne by the Coast Survey and from other sources as to the accuracy and value of the charts, which shows that they are now regarded by navigators as indispensable to ships which are navigating the ocean upon the Pacific coast. Whether they will come under the head of books or not, I do not know. We have procured a limited number of them, and they are in very great demand. The gentlemen from California attach very great value to them, and deem them of great importance. Navigators of established character deem them of very great importance, indispensable indeed. The Coast Survey, under whose examination they are passed, and who have made use of them in perfecting their reports, bear the very highest testimony as to their character and their indispensable necessity to all persons navigating the Pacific coast.

Mr. BADGER. I will read the provision of law:

"Be it further enacted, That hereafter no books shall be

distributed to members of Congress, except such as are ordered to be printed as public documents by the Congress of which they are members: Provided, That this section shall not prohibit or interfere with the distribution, to all mem bers who have heretofore received books under the order of either House, of the remaining volumes or parts, so as to complete the sets which they have received."

Mr. GWIN. That does not refer to these charts, and most valuable ones they are. They are not books. They are nothing but charts.

Mr. PETTIT. With the leave of the Senator from California, I will obviate all that difficulty. The resolution is to authorize their purchase for the use of the Senate. I propose to amend it so that it shall be for the use of the navigators upon the Pacific coast. That certainly will obviate the difficulty. [Laughter.]

Mr. GWIN. I accept that. Mr. CHASE. I think we have already voted about enough for charts.

Special Session-Duties on Iron.

Mr. BADGER. These are new ones.
Mr. CHASE. I know it; and I have no doubt
of their value as stated by the chairman of the
Committee on Printing; but if they be of such
value, undoubtedly those who navigate the coast
can obtain them. I see no reason why the Senate
should purchase them more than any other book
designed for general circulation.

Buta more serious objection to it is that it would
be violating, if not the letter, the spirit of the law.
The law was designed to prevent the purchase of
books, not reports to Congress, for which no spe-
cial appropriation was made; and every lawyer
knows that under the general term of books,
maps and charts are included. I therefore move
that the resolution lie upon the table.

Mr. GWIN. Let it go over until Monday. I
do not wish to interfere with the Senator from
Virginia; but I am prepared to show that it is not
a violation of the law, and that the charts are of
great value.

Mr. CHASE. I withdraw my motion.
The motion to postpone was agreed to.

EXECUTIVE SESSION.

tion:
Mr. HUNTER. I offer the following resolu-

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury be directed
to report to the Senate at its next annual session, the aver-
age prices annually of bar-iron, merchantable, manufactured
by rolling; bar-iron, merchantable, manufactured otherwise
than by rolling; railroad iron, manufactured by rolling, and
pig-iron, for the last ten years preceding 1853, in the foreign
markets of production or shipment; also the average prices
annually of the same description of iron at New York and
Pittsburg for the same period, together with the charges for
freights, insurance, and commission.

It has been suggested to me by practical men that the true basis of a compromise between the producers and consumers of iron in this country would be to establish a point in the price after which no duty should be charged. It has been said that it is probable some point could be ascertained after which the duty could be taken off without injuring the producers of iron, and which would be for the benefit of the consumers-the protection being that the duty would be applied upon the iron whenever it ranged below the price named by law. For the purpose of ascertaining if such a thing be possible, inasmuch as it is very desirable to produce some sort of compromise between the producing and consuming interests, I have introduced the resolution. The question will come up at the next session. By that time the Secretary which we may act in regard to the subject. It will be enabled to give us the information upon seems to me exceedingly desirable that we should produce harmony between the great industrial interests of the country, and whenever the subject is capable of compromise we should begin in time and collect information to enable the Government to make some arrangement which may enable them all to go on harmoniously. I trust that something like this may be done. It seems to me to be a plausible idea; and without committing myself to it, I think there is so much in it as to make it desirable to have the information to enable us to act upon it hereafter.

Mr. BRODHEAD. Since 1846 or 1847, the manufacturers of railroad and other iron generally have been asking for some compromise. They have appealed more than once, I believe, to the honorable Senator from Virginia, and I am very happy to learn now that he is willing to have some compromise on the subject. I should have been much more pleased to have heard it from him some two or three years ago when those engaged in the manufacture of iron, especially of railroad iron, were suffering so terribly, and calling loudly for relief.

SENATE.

Mr. HUNTER. I think the Senator from Pennsylvania is not exactly aware of my purpose and agency in regard to this matter. I introduced the resolution for the purpose of seeing if something cannot be done which may satisfy the consumers of iron without injuring the producers. It has been suggested to me that here was the idea upon which some such compromise could be made. I do not know whether it can be done or not; but it is certain that at the next session we shall have to meet the question; and I submit to the Senator whether it is not better in every point to have all the information which we can obtain in regard to the subject. That is the end and object of the resolution.

I will say in relation to my own opinions, since the gentleman has referred to them, that I am a free-trade man. It is known to everybody who knows me that I am a free-trade man to this extent-that I go for duties upon revenue principles, and for the lowest duties which will bring in sufficient revenue for the purposes of the Government; but at the same time, I believe that when interests are called into existence, whether by improper legislation or not, by the action of the Government, those interests ought not to be suddenly and wantonly destroyed; and whenever the Government may choose to take the direction of reform, it should do it as gradually and slowly as may be consistent with the existence of the interests which it has called into being. My object is a kind one.

Mr. BRODHEAD. My friend from Virginia says he is a free-trade man. It is difficult to understand in what sense he is so, because not four weeks ago, he advocated upon this floor the worst kind of discrimination. He advocated a proposition to take the duties off railroad iron entirely. Is he in favor of taking them off cotton, woolen, and other species of manufactures in the country? Where, then, do we obtain the revenue? I would like to know what my friend from Virginia means by saying that he is a free-trade man? Does he mean that he is in favor of the repeal of all duties, and a resort to direct taxation? It would seem so from the fact of his advocating the abolition of duties upon railroad iron entirely; because I can see no reason whatever for taking the duty off railroad iron and not off the other articles which I have named.

I

Mr. HUNTER. The Senator from Pennsylvania says he is at a loss to know in what sense pronounce myself a free-trade man. I said in what sense it was. I said I was in favor of laying on duties only on revenue principles, to raise as much revenue as would be necessary for the proper administration of the Government. That defined my opinion in that respect. He says, though, that I must be for direct taxation, because I voted follow. Here is a question, if I chose to go into to t: ke the duty off railroad iron. That does not it, in relation to the propriety of taking the duty off railroad iron, which involves the question in regard to the true principles of taxation; but I do not choose to enter into it. The Senator might have remembered, that on the occasion to which he alluded, I voted under the instructions of my previously I had declined meddling with the subState Legislature, and that during the whole time ject of duties upon iron, in any way. He knows that I made no speech in regard to it. I gave a vote in accordance with instructions. And now what is the object I have in view? It is to obtain information, to see whether we may not ascertain some point in the price after which the duty may be taken off iron, not only for railroad, but for all reserving a provision in the law by which duties purposes, without injury to the producing interest, shall be laid upon iron when its price ranges below the point. I have it from good authority that there are many iron-masters who believe that this would afford the basis of a compromise. I know there are many railroad men who believe it. I do I have the information; but, as I said before, I not yet pronounce upon it. I cannot do so until think the idea is plausible enough to justify us in the effort to obtain testimony to see how far it is practicable.

The question was then taken on the resolution, and it was agreed to.

NAVAL DEPOT AT NEWPORT.
Mr. JAMES submitted the following resolution;

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

which was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to:

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Navy be requested to inquire whether it will not be advantageous to the Government of the United States, to establish a naval depôt at Newport, Rhode Island, and that he report to the Senate at its next session.

LATE SERGEANT-AT-ARMS.

On motion by Mr. SHIELDS, the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the following resolution, which was ordered on Thursday last to lie upon the table:

"Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate pay to Robert Beale, late Sergeant-at-Arms, the salary for the residue of the present year."

Special Session-Ringgold's Charts.

Mr. SHIELDS. If the Senator will permit me, I do not want to go into this matter, but I will state that if there had been a term fixed for the office, and Mr. Beale had been an officer who knew he was to be removed at the expiration of that term, the case would be very different. The Sergeant-at-Arms is compelled to procure stabling and forage and make various preparations in order to manage the affairs of the Senate; and, sir, the salary proposed to be given by the resolution will not compensate Mr. Beale for the injury which he has sustained. What is it? It is at best only $1,800 a year, and the resolution proposes to pay only to the end of the fiscal year; and here he is left to dispose of forage, of stabling, of a variety of things which he had prepared in order to Mr. SHIELDS. I hope there will be no oppothe performance of his duties in this body. The sition to the resolution, and if so, I do not want horses and carry-alls are all left on his hands. In to say a word in relation to it. The only object my humble opinion there is a strong equity in this I had in view in introducing it was this: the late case. I do not say the Senate is bound to make Sergeant-at-Arms, who has served since I came the allowance, but I say it is equitable when an into the Senate-and I think with great fidelity-officer is cut off in the midst of the term to make and has done everything which a man could do to an allowance. make himself useful to Senators, has been removed without any notice. It is well known that there has been no term fixed for these changes; that he had no previous notice; that the action of the Senate electing another person in his place, came unexpectedly upon him. He has been left with a considerable amount of property on his hands, of which of course he will be unable to dispose in such a way as to make it advantageous to himself. If there had been a term, as for instance four years, during which he knew he was to hold office, and then a new election was to come on, it would be very different; but I think this case stands upon a different footing altogether. There has been no definite term for the appointment of these officers. In fact they have looked upon themselves as here for life. It is true that the Senate has only performed its duty perhaps in reelecting its officers; but at the same time, this falls a little hard upon this officer, who has done everything a man could do, to discharge his duty to the Senate. I hope the resolution will pass without opposition.

Mr. PETTIT. I am opposed to the resolution for the reasons which I stated the other day, and I will not trouble the Senate by repeating them. It seems to me it is without precedent and propriety. We have dismissed an officer who held his office dependent upon the will of the Senate. The Senate has expressed its will. It does not want him any longer; and why he should still be in our pay I am totally unable to see. I will ask for the yeas and nays upon the passage of the resolution. Mr. WALKER. I am opposed to the resolution. I think it ought not to be adopted. If we do this, we shall constitute a precedent for almost everything that can be considered a gratuity. Now, can any Senator in the Chamber mention to me upon what principle the salary of the Sergeant-atArms should be paid to Mr. Beale for the rest of the year, unless it be upon the ground stated by the Senator from Illinois? I think that no man can mention any good ground upon which the allowance should be made. Is the ground stated by the Senator from Illinois a good one? Why, sir, have we displaced an officer who is left destitute and pennyless, and without support? Not at all. We have exercised the privilege that belonged to the Senate of electing a Sergeant-at-Arms to supersede Mr. Beale; but it is not the fact, if I understand it aright, that Mr. Beale is left in a destitute condition. He is not left as one of those helpless and poor office-holders who is suddenly taken by surprise and turned out. We shall have in every Department of the Government, in all probability, cases which will excite our commis. eration much more than this; and shall the legislative branch of the Government take up the case of every clerk who is turned out by surprise, and left without anything to fall back upon, and make him an allowance for one year following his removal? I hope not. Your Treasury would be insufficient for it; and yet we propose to set an example which would be one of the most memorable of the kind in regard to one of our own officers. We pay Mr. Beale! Why the position which he occupies is not even a sinecure, and we pay the gentleman whom we have elected for the actual discharge of the duties. I can see no good reason for it.

NEW SERIES.-No. 20.

Mr. WALKER. I believe I understand the Senator's idea. I am sorry that this last matter has been brought up. I feel as little disposition to say anything which may be afflictive to Mr. Beale's feelings as any Senator on this floor, but I must mention a fact in connection with this matter, for it seems to be the strongest ground upon which the resolution is based. I procured from the Secretary of the Senate-I made it a part of his duty to furnish me-a paper showing that during one long session of Congress there was paid to Mr. Beale for the service of his horses and his carry-alls, upwards of $5,000. Sir, the Committee on the Contingent Expenses of the Senate have been making their exertions to reduce this matter in the hands of Mr. Beale; and I must now say to the Senator that in defiance of that committee, while I was a member of it, Mr. Beale would employ his extra horses, and carry-alls, and wagons, and when the committee refused to allow it, he dogged us from one end of the Capitol to the other, and all around and over it; and in the last six days he has been dogging me, although not now a member of the committee, to use my influence with them to get the allowance of the last batch for the horses. That is the last thing for which he should be compensated. I hope that nothing more of that kind will be mentioned as a merit. I think now, to speak plainly, that the least said about the matter the better, for I should be extremely sorry, in justification of my own course, and of the Committee on Contingent Expenses, to bring forth other matters that might be, and shall be brought forth, if necessary, from my desk.

Mr. SHIELDS. As far as I am concerned, the honorable Senator can bring forth what he pleases. I know nothing about what the Committee on Contingent Expenses have done, and I have made no charges against that committee, far from it. I presume Mr. Beale received no money out of the contingent fund that was not allowed him by the Senate. Whether it was allowed by the committee or not, I know not. The Senate must have supposed that they gave that money for some object. I cannot understand the honorable Senator when he says that this money has been allowed to Mr. Beale against the wishes of the Senate for extra services. Is that what I am to understand? I know nothing of that. All I say is and I understand the honorable Senator does not pretend to gainsay it-that Mr. Beale is left with a large amount of property on his hands which he had to procure for the service of the

Senate.

Mr. WALKER. If the honorable Senator
will allow me, I will state that he was authorized,
if I understood the last order of the Senate aright,
to employ one wagon for the mail service, and
one for document purposes. Now, if that is the
great amount to be left upon his hands, and he is
to be paid a year's salary in consequence of it, be
it so.
I do not think they would be a great bur-
den to him. I understand that horses and wagons
bring pretty good prices here. I mentioned the
fact of the large receipts that he had to show that
the ground of sympathy for him is not well taken,
and that we ought not to be called upon on such a
ground to make him an allowance which in reality,

SENATE.

on the score of sympathy or anything else, is not due to him.

Mr. BAYARD. I am opposed generally to everything like contingent allowances, and shall always be. I think I stated the other day that they necessarily lead to corruption. The case, however, now before us seems to me to form an exception. The practice of the Senate has hitherto been for its officers to hold during pleasure, without any specific term, without any known time at which the office would expire and they would be liable to reelection. Suddenly, during an Executive session, you removed the late Sergeant-at-Arms, without notice, without investigation. I do not know that there was any ground of objection, but simply on the ground of mere will, by which you choose to place a new person in the situation. The act was right and proper in itself, if in the judgment of Senators they could procure a better officer by so doing; but when no charges were made, I think by the general practice and usage of the Senate, it would be an act of ordinary liberality to make the allowance which the resolution proposes. It is widely different from the case of an officer who holds office for a specific term, when he knows his office will terminate unless he is reelected or reappointed. Such has not hitherto been the practice of the Senate. It is for these reasons that I am disposed to vote for the allowance, because unless we make it, it will seem like an implied reflection upon the character of the officer.

The resolution was then reported to the Senate without amendment, and was read a third time. On the question of its passage the yeas and nays were ordered, and being taken, resulted-yeas 27, nays 12, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Atchison, Badger, Bayard, Brodhead, Butler, Clayton, Cooper, Dodge of Wisconsin, Everett, Fish, Fitzpatrick, Gwin, James, Morton, Norris, Phelps, Stuart, Thompson of Kentucky, Thomson of New Jersey, Pratt, Rusk, Sebastian, Seward, Shields, Smith, Soulé, and Wright-27.

NAYS-Messrs. Adams, Atherton, Borland, Chase, Evans, Houston, Mason, Pettit, Sumner, Toucey, Walker, and Weller-12.

So the resolution was passed.

Mr. BRODHEAD subsequently moved a reconsideration of the vote, and said: I thought that the resolution made the allowance for the residue

of the fiscal year which ends in June; but upon a
critical examination of it, I think it may be con-
strued to extend the pay until December next. It

says
"the present year. I understood, in the
hurry and confusion which prevailed in the Cham-
ber-for there is a good deal of "noise and confu-
sion" here--that it was during the fiscal year.

Mr. SHIELDS. My intention was that it should be so understood. I have no objection to inserting "fiscal." The alteration can be made by common consent.

The motion to reconsider was agreed to, and the question recurred on the passage of the resolution.

Mr. BRODHEAD. I move to insert "fiscal" before "year."

Mr. SHIELDS. At the same time, to save any further difficulty, I move to insert "out of the contingent fund of the Senate," after " pay. The amendments were agreed to, and the resolution as amended was passed.

READING SECRETARY.

Mr. ADAMS moved to take up the resolution submitted by him some days since in relation to the appointment of a reading secretary; but the motion was lost; there being on a division-ayes 10, noes not counted.

RINGGOLD'S CHARTS.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the following resolution:

"Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate be authorized to purchase one thousand copies of Ringgold's maps, charts, and sailing directions, of the coast of California, for the use of navigators upon that coast: Provided, The price shall not exceed four dollars per copy."

Mr. MASON. I think very clearly that the resolution is against the meaning, if it is not within the letter, of the act of the last session, to which you, Mr. President, (Mr. BADGER in the chair,) called the attention of the Senate on Saturday, prohibiting the purchase of books, unless by a joint vote of the two Houses. I think that is a sufficient objection to it; but were it not so, I think it

cial session, violate a law which they assisted in passing at the close of the last session.

It is said that this does not fall within the letter of the law because it is a chart. Sir, there are numerous decisions, as all lawyers know, which establish the doctrine that the word "book" does in point of fact comprehend charts. That is the legal sense of the term. It is a sense which of course would apply to the word "books" in the law to which reference is made. If, then, we pass the resolution it will certainly, according to the import of language, violate that law.

Mr. BAYARD. The objection mentioned by the Senator from Ohio is the only reason why I must vote against this resolution. Were it a joint resolution, I am inclined to think I would vote cheerfully for it. But the law to which reference is made, clearly, in its letter and intent, restrains the action of the Senate in this matter, and I cannot violate that law.

Mr. BORLAND. I shall not contend with the Senators who have just spoken, upon the meaning which they attach to the word "chart" and the similarity of meaning which they seem to think exists between that and the word "book;" but there is another ground which I think very satisfactory, upon which this proposition is not excluded by the terms of the law. The third section of the act referred to, in which the prohibition is || made, is in these words:

"That hereafter no books shall be distributed to members of Congress except such as are ordered to be printed by the Congress of which they are members."