OjC 
 
 Gass_j£^ 
 Book_ 
 
SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 MR. WEBSTER, 
 
 IN THE <**~m g mmmmm+.. 
 
 .Of 
 
 SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, 
 
 JANUARY 14, 1836/ 
 
 ON 
 
 MR. BENTON'S RESOLUTIONS, 
 
 FOR APPROPRIATING THE 
 
 SURPLUS REVENUE TO NATIONAL DEFENCE. 
 
 // 
 
 f 
 
 BOSTON: 
 
 JOHN H. EASTBURN, PRINTER, 
 
 No. 18 State Street. 
 
 1836. 
 
 
4 
 
 the House of Representatives, which was here neglected, overlooked, 
 or disregarded. 
 
 On the oihcr hand, it was the misfortune of the Senate, and, as I 
 think, the misfortune of the country, that, owing to the state of business 
 in the House of Representatives towards the close of the session, several 
 measures which had been matured in the Senate, and passed into bills, 
 did not receive attention, so as to be either agreed to or rejected, in the 
 other branch of the Legislature. They fell, of course, by the termina- 
 tion of the session. 
 
 Anions; these measures may be mentioned the following, viz : 
 
 'I'm. I'ost Oi ti< k Reform Bill, which passed the Senate unani- 
 motuly, and of the necessity for which the whole country is certainly 
 now most abundantly satisfied ; 
 
 Tin Ci mom House Regulations Bill, which also passed near- 
 ly unanimously, after a very laborious preparation by the Committee on 
 Commerce, and a full discussion in the Senate ; 
 
 The Judiciary Bill, passed here by a majority of thirty-one, to 
 five, and which has again already passed the Senate at this session with 
 only a single dissenting vote ; 
 
 The bill indemnifying claimants for French spoliations 
 eefore 1S00 ; 
 
 The bill regulating the deposite of the public money in 
 the Deposite Banks; 
 
 The bill respecting the tenure of certain offices, and 
 the power of removal from office ; which has now again passed 
 to be engrossed, in the Senate, by a decided majority. 
 
 All these important measures, matured and passed in the Senate in 
 the course of the session, and many others whose importance was less, 
 were sent to the House of Representatives, and we never heard any 
 thing more from them. They there found their graves. 
 
 It is worthy of being remarked, also, that the attendance of members 
 of the Senate was remarkably full, particularly toward the end of the 
 session. On the last day every Senator was in his place till very near 
 the hour of adjournment, as the journal will show. We had no break- 
 ing up for want of a quorum ; no delay, no calls of the Senate ; nothing 
 which was made necessary by the negligence or inattention of the mem- 
 bers of this body. On the vote of the three millions of dollars, which 
 was taken at about eight o'clock in the evening, forty-eight votes were 
 given, every member of the Senate being in his place and answering to 
 his name. This is an instance of punctuality, diligence and labor, con- 
 tinued to the very end of an arduous session, wholly without example or 
 pal allel. 
 
 The Senate, then, sir, must stand, in the judgment of every man, 
 fully acquitted of all remissness, all negligence, all inattention, amidst the 
 fatigue and exhaustion of the closing hours of Congress. Nothing passed 
 unheeded, nothing was overlooked, nothing forgotten, and nothing 
 ■lighted. 
 
 And now, sir, I would proceed immediately to give the history of the 
 Fortification Bill, if it were not necessary, as introductory to that histo- 
 
ry, and as showing the circumstances under which the Senate was call- 
 ed on to transact the public business, first to refer to another bill which 
 was before us, and to the proceedings which were had upon it. 
 
 It is well known, sir, that the annual appropriation bills always origin- 
 ate in the House cf Representatives. This is so much the course, that 
 no one ever looks to see such a bill first brought forward in the Senate. 
 It is also well known, sir, that it has been usual, heretofore, to make 
 the annual appropriations for the Military Academy at West Point, in 
 the general bill, which provides for the pay and support of the army. 
 But last year the army bill did not contain any appropriation whatever 
 for the support of West Point. I took notice of this singular omission 
 when the bill was before the Senate, but presumed, and indeed under- 
 stood, that the House would send us a separate bill for the Military 
 Academy. The army bill, therefore, passed ; but no bill for the Acad- 
 emy at West Point appeared. We waited for it from day to day, and 
 from week to week, but waited in vain. At length, the time for send- 
 ing bills from one House to the other, according to the joint rules of 
 the two Houses, expired, and no bill had made its appearance for the 
 support of the Military Academy. These joint rules, as is well known, 
 are sometimes suspended on the application of one House to the other, 
 in favor of particular bills, whose progress has been unexpectedly delay- 
 ed, but which the public interest requires to be passed. But the House 
 of Representatives sent us no request to suspend the rules in favor of a 
 bill for the support of the Military Academy, nor made any other prop- 
 ositions to save the Institution from immediate dissolution. Notwith- 
 standing all the talk about a war, and the necessity of a vote for the 
 three millions, the Military Academy, an institution cherished so long, 
 and at so much expense, was on the very point of being entirely brok- 
 en up. 
 
 Now it so happened, sir, that at this time there was another appro- 
 priation bill which had come from the House of Representatives, and 
 was before the Committee on Finance here. This bill was entitled "An 
 act making appropriations for the civil and diplomatic expenses of the 
 Government for the year J 885." 
 
 In this state of things, several members of the House of Representa- 
 tives applied to the committee, and besought us to save the Academy 
 by annexing the necessary appropriations for its support to the bill for 
 civil and diplomatic service. We spoke to them, in reply, of the unfit- 
 ness, the irregularity, the incongruity, of this forced union of such dis- 
 similar subjects ; but they told us it was a case of absolute necessity, 
 and that, without resorting to this mods, the appropriation could not get 
 through. We acquiesced, sir, in these suggestions. We went out of our 
 way. We agreed to do an extraordinary and an irregular thing, in order 
 to save the public business from miscarriage. By direction of the com- 
 mittee, I moved the Senate to add an appropriation for the Military 
 Academy to the bill for defraying civil and diplomatic expenses. The 
 bill was so amended ; and in this form the appropriation was finally 
 made. 
 
 But this was not all. This bill for the civil and diplomatic service 
 
being thus amended, by tacking the Military Academy upon it, was sent 
 back" by us to the House of Representatives, where its length of tail 
 was to be still much further increased. That House had before it sever- 
 al subjects for provision, and for appropriation, upon which it had not 
 passed any bill, before the time for passing bills to be sent to the Sen- 
 ate had elapsed. 1 was anxious that these things should, in some way, 
 be provided for; and when the diplomatic bill came hack, drawing the 
 Military Academy after it, it was thought prudent to attach to it various 
 of these other provisions. There were propositions to pave the streets 
 in the city of Washington, to repair the Capitol, and various other 
 things, which it was necessary to provide for ; and they, therefore, were 
 put into the same bill by way of amendment to an amendment ; that is 
 to say, Mr. President, we had been prevailed on to amend their bill for 
 defraying; the salary of our ministers abroad, by adding an appropriation 
 for the Military Academy ; and they proposed to amend this our amend- 
 ment, by adding to it matter as germain to it, as it was to the original 
 bill. There was also the President's gardener. His salary w'as unpro- 
 vided for ; and there was no way of remedying this important omission, 
 but by giving him place in the diplomatic service bill, among charges 
 d'affaires, envoys extraordinary, and ministers plenipotentiary. In and 
 among these ranks, therefore, he was formally introduced by the amend- 
 ment of the House, and there he now stands, as you will readily see, by 
 turning to the law. 
 
 Sir, I have not the pleasure to know this useful person ; but, should 
 I see him, some morning overlooking the workmen in the lawns, walks, 
 copses, and parterres which adorn the grounds around the President's 
 residence, considering the company into which we have introduced him, 
 I should expect to see, at least, a small diplomatic button on his work- 
 ing jacket. 
 
 When these amendments came from the House, and were read at our 
 table, though they caused a smile, they ivere yet adopted, and the law 
 passed, almost with the rapidity of a comet, and with something like the 
 same length of tail. 
 
 Now, sir, not one of ihese irregularities or incongruities, no part of 
 this jumbling together of distinct and different subjects, was, in the 
 slightest degree, occasioned by any thing done, or omitted to be done, 
 on the part of the Senate. Their proceedings were all regular ; their 
 decision prompt, their despatch of the public business correct and reas- 
 onable. There was nothing of disorganization, nothing of procrastina- 
 tion, nothing evincive of a temper to embarrass or obstruct the public 
 business. If the history which J have now truly given, shows that one 
 thing was amended by another, which had no sort of connexion with it, 
 that unusual expedients were resorted to, and that the laws, instead of 
 arrangement and symmetry, exhibit anomaly, confusion, and the most 
 grotesque associations, it is, nevertheless true, that no part of all this 
 was made m-rc ,hv by us. We deviated from the accustomed modes 
 of legislation only when we were supplicated to do so, in order to sup- 
 ply bald and glaring deficmnces iii measures which were before us. 
 
 Hut now, Mr. JV< -i(i. ,<i, let me come to the Fortification Bill, the 
 
lost bill, which not only now, but on a graver occasion, has been la- 
 mented like the lost Pleiad. 
 
 This bill, sir, came from the House of Representatives to the Sen- 
 ate, in the usual way, and was referred to the Committee on Finance. 
 Its appropriations were not large. Indeed, they appeared to the com- 
 mittee to be quite too small. It struck a majority of the committee at 
 once that there were several fortifications on the coast, either not pro- 
 vided for at all, or not adequately provided for by this bill. The whole 
 amount of its appropriations was 400,000 or 430,000 dollars. It con- 
 tained no grant of three millions, and if the Senate had passed it the 
 very day it came from the House, not only would there have been no 
 appropriation of the three millions, but, sir, none of these other sums 
 which the Senate did insert in the bill. Others, besides ourselves, saw 
 the deficiences of this bill. We had communications with and from the 
 Departments, and we inserted in the bill every thing which any Depart- 
 ment recommended to us. We took care to be sure that nothing else 
 was coming. And we then reported the bill to the Senate with our pro- 
 posed amendments. Among these amendments, there was a sum of 
 $75,000 for Castle Island, in Boston, $100,000 for defences in Mary- 
 land, and so forth. These amendments were agreed to by the Senate, 
 and one or two others added, on the motion of members ; and the bill, 
 being thus amended, was returned to the House. 
 
 And now, sir, it becomes important to ask when was this bill, thus 
 amended, returned to the House of Representatives ? Was it unduly 
 detained here, so that the House was obliged afterwards to act upon it 
 suddenly ! This question is material to be asked, and material to be an- 
 swered, too, and the Journal does satisfactorily answer it ; for it ap- 
 pears by the Journal that the bill was returned to the House of Repre- 
 sentatives on Tuesday, the 24th of February, one whole week before the 
 close of the session. And from Tuesday, the 24th of February, to 
 Tuesday, the 3d day of March, we heard not one word from this bill. 
 Tuesday, the 3d day of March, was, of course, the last day of the ses- 
 sion. We assembled here at 10 or 11 o'clock in the morning of that 
 day, and sat until three in the afternoon, and still we were not informed 
 whether the House had finally passed the bill. As it was an important 
 matter, and belonged to that part of the public business which usually 
 receives particular attention from the Committee on Finance, I bore the 
 subject in my mind, and felt some solicitude about it, seeing that the 
 session was drawing so near to a close. I took it for granted, however, 
 as I had not heard any thing to the contrary, that the amendments of 
 the Senate would not be objected to, and that when a convenient time 
 should arrive for taking up the bill in the House, it would be passed at 
 once into a law, and we should hear no more about it. Not the slight- 
 est intimation was given, either that the Executive wished for any larger 
 appropriation, or that it was intended in the House to insert such larger 
 appropriation. Not a syllable escaped from any body, and came to our 
 knowledge, that any farther alteration whatever was intended in the bill. 
 
 At 3 o'clock in the afternoon of the 3d of March, the Senate took its 
 recess, as is usual in that period of the session, until 5. At 5, we again 
 
8 
 
 assembled, and proceeded with the business of the Senate until 8 o'clock 
 in the evening ; and, at 8 o'clock in the evening, and not before, the 
 Clerk of the House appeared at our door, and announced that the House 
 of Representatives had disagreed to one of the Senate's amendments, 
 agreed to others ; and to two of those amendments, viz. the 4th and 5th, 
 it had agreed, with an amendment of its own. 
 
 Now, sir, these 4th and 5th amendments of ours were, one, a vote 
 of $75,000 for the castle in Boston harbor, and the. other, a vote of 
 $100,000 for certain defences in Maryland. And what, sir, was the 
 addition which the House of Representatives proposed to make, by way 
 of u amendment' ' to a vote of §75,000 for repairing the works in Bos- 
 ton harbor ? Here, sir, it is : 
 
 " And be it further enacted. That the sum of three millions of dollars 
 be, and the same is hereby appropriated, out of any money in the Treas- 
 ury not otherwise appropriated, to be expended, in whole or in part, un- 
 der the direction of the President of the United States, for the military 
 and naval service, including fortifications and ordnance, and increase of 
 the navy : Provided, such expenditures shall be rendered necessary for 
 the defence of the country prior to the next meeting of Congress." 
 
 This proposition, sir, was thus unexpectedly and suddenly put to us, 
 at eight o'clock in the evening of the last day of the session. Unusual, 
 unprecedented, extraordinary, as it obviously is, on the face of it, the 
 manner of presenting it was still more extraordinary. The President 
 had asked for no such grant of money ; no Department had recommend- 
 ed it ; no estimate had suggested it ; no reason whatever was given for 
 it. No emergency had happened, and nothing new had occurred ; 
 every thing known to the Administration, at that hour, respecting our 
 foreign relations, had certainly been known to it for days and weeks. 
 
 With what propriety, then, could the Senate be called on to sanction 
 a proceeding so entirely irregular and anomalous ? Sir, I recollect the 
 occurrences of the moment very well, and I remember the impression 
 which this vote of the House seemed to make all round the Senate. We 
 had just come out of Executive session ; the doors were but just open- 
 ed ; and I hardly remember whether there was a single spectator in the 
 hall or the galleries. I had been at the Clerk's table, and had not reach- 
 ed my seat, when the message was read. All the Senators were in the 
 chamber. I heard the message, certainly with great surprise and aston- 
 ishment ; and I immediately moved the Senate to disagree to this vote 
 of the House. My relation to the subject, in consequence of my con- 
 nexion with the Committee on Finance, made it my duty to propose 
 some course, and I had not a moment's doubt or hesitation what that 
 course ought to be. I took upon myself, then, sir, the responsibility of 
 moving that the Senate should disagree to this vote, and I now acknowl- 
 edge that responsibility. I might be presumptuous to say that I took a 
 leading part, but I certainly took an early part, a decided part, and an 
 earnest part, in rejecting this broad grant of three millions of dollars, 
 without limitation of purpose or specification of object ; called for by no 
 
recommendation, founded on no estimate, made necessary by no state 
 of things which was made known to us. Certainly, sir, I took a part in 
 its rejection ; and I stand here, in my place in the Senate, to-day ready 
 to defend the part so taken by me ; or, rather, sir, I disclaim all defence, 
 and all occasion of defence, and I assert it as meritorious to have been 
 among those who arrested, at the earliest moment, this extraordinary de- 
 parture from all settled usage, and, as I think, from plain constitutional 
 injunction — this indefinite voting of a vast sum of money, to mere 
 Executive discretion, without limit assigned, without object specified, 
 without reason given, and without the least control under Heaven. 
 
 Sir, I am told, that, in opposing this grant, I spoke with warmth, and 
 I suppose I may have done so. If I did, it was a warmth springing 
 from as honest a conviction of duty as ever influenced a public man. It 
 was spontaneous, unaffected, sincere. There had been among us, sir, 
 no consultation, no concert. There could have been none. Between 
 the reading of the message, and my motion to disagree, there was not 
 time enough for any two members of the Senate to exchange five words 
 on the subject. The proposition was sudden and perfectly unexpected. 
 I resisted it, as irregular, as dangerous in itself, and dangerous in its 
 precedent ; as wholly unnecessary, and as violating the plain intention, 
 if not the express words of the Constitution. Before the Senate, then, 
 I avowed, and before the country I now avow my part in this opposition. 
 Whatsoever is to fall on those who sanctioned it, of that let me have 
 my full share. 
 
 The Senate, sir, rejected this grant by a vote of twenty-nine 
 against nineteen. Those twenty-nine names are on the Journal ; and 
 whensoever the expunging process may commence, or how far soever 
 it may be carried, I pray it, in mercy, not to erase mine from that record. 
 I beseech it, in its sparing goodness, to leave me that proof of attach- 
 ment to duty and to principle. It may draw around it, over it, or 
 through it, black lines, or red lines, or any lines ; it may mark it in any 
 way which either the most prostrate and fantastical spirit of man-worship, 
 or the most ingenious and elaborate study of self-degradation may devise, 
 if only it will leave it so that those who inherit my blood, or who may 
 hereafter care for my reputation shall be able to behold it where it now 
 stands. 
 
 The House, sir, insisted on this amendment. The Senate adhered 
 to its disagreement ; the House asked a conference, to which request 
 the Senate immediately acceded. The committees of conference met, 
 and, in a very short time, came to an agreement. They agreed to rec- 
 ommend to their respective Houses, as a substitute for the vote proposed 
 by the House, the following : 
 
 "As an additional appropriation for arming the fortifications of the 
 United States, three hundred thousand dollars." 
 
 "As an additional appropriation for the repairs and equipment of ships 
 of war of the United States, five hundred thousand dollars." 
 
 I immediately reported this agreement of the committees of confer- 
 ence to the Senate ; but, inasmuch as the bill was in the House of Rep- 
 resentatives, the Senate could not act farther on the matter until the 
 2 
 
10 
 
 House should first have considered the report of the committees, decid- 
 ed thereon, and sent us the bill. I did not myself take any note of the 
 particular hour of this part of the transaction. The honorable member 
 from Virginia, (Air. Leigh) says he consulted his watch at the time, and 
 he knows that ' had come from the conference, and was in my seat at 
 a quarter past eleven. 1 have no reason to think that he is under any 
 mistake on this particular. He says it so happened that he had occa- 
 sion to take notice of the hour, and well remembers it. It could not 
 well have been later than this, as any one will be satisfied who will look 
 at our journals, public and executive, and see what a mass of business 
 was despatched after I came from the committees, and before the ad- 
 journment of the Senate. Having made the report, sir, I had no doubt 
 that both Houses would concur in the result of the conference, and 
 looked every moment for the officer of the House bring'ng the Bill. 
 He did not come, however, and I pretty soon learned that there was doubt 
 whether the committee on the part of the House would report to the 
 House the agreement of the conferees. At first, I did not at all credit 
 this; but was confirmed by one communication after another, until I 
 was obliged to think it true. Seeing that the bill was thus in danger of 
 being lost, and intending at any rate that no blame should justly attach to 
 the Senate, 1 immediately moved the following resolution : 
 
 "Resolved, That a message be sent to the honorable the House of 
 Representatives respectfully to remind the House of the report of the 
 committee of conference appointed on the disagreeing votes ol the two 
 Houses on the amendment of the House to the amendment of the Sen- 
 ate to the bill respecting the fortificating of the United Stales." 
 
 You recollect this resolution, sir, having, as 1 well remember, taken 
 some part on the occasion.* 
 
 This resolution was promptly passed ; the Secretary carried it to the 
 House, and delivered it. What was done in the House on the receipt 
 of this message now appears from the printed journal. 1 have no wish 
 to comment on the proceedings there recorded — all may read them, 
 and each be able to form his own opinion. Suffice it to say that the 
 House of Representatives, having then possession of the bill, chose to 
 retain that possession, and never acted on the report of the committee. 
 The bill therefore, was lost. It was lost in the House of Representa- 
 tives. It died there, and there its remains are to be found. No oppor- 
 tunity was given to the members of the House to decide whether they 
 would agree to the report of the two committees or not. From a quar- 
 ter past eleven, when the report was agreed to, until two or three o'clock 
 in the morning, the House remained in session. If at any time there 
 was not a quorum of members present, the attendance of a quorum, we 
 are to presume, might have been commanded, as there was undoubtedly 
 a great majority of the members still in the city. 
 
 But now, sir, there is one other transaction of the evening, which I 
 feel bound to state, because I think it quite important, on several ac- 
 counts, that it should be known. 
 
 * Mr. King, of Alabama, was in the chair. 
 
11 
 
 A nomination was pending before the Senate for a Judge of the Su- 
 preme Court. In the course of the sitting, that nomination was called 
 up, and, on motion, was indefinitely postponed. In other words, it was 
 rejected ; for an indefinite postponement is a rejection. The office, of 
 course, remained vacant, and the nomination of another person to fill it 
 became necessary. The President of the United States was then in 
 the Capitol, as is usual on the evening of the last day cf the session, in 
 the chamber assigned to him, and with the heads of Departments around 
 him. When nominations are rejected under these circumstances, it has 
 been usual for the President immediately to transmit a new nomination 
 to the Senate ; otherwise the office must remain vacant till the next ses- 
 sion, as the vacancy in such case has not happened in the recess of 
 Congress. The vote of the Senate, indefinitely postponing this nomi- 
 nation, was carried to the President's room by the Secretary of the 
 Senate. The President told the Secretary that it was more than an 
 hour past 12 o'clock, and that he could receive no further communica- 
 tions from the Senate, and immediately after, as I have understood, left 
 the Capitol. The Secretary brought back the paper containing the cer- 
 tified copy of the vote of the Senate, and endorsed thereon the substance 
 of the President's answer, and also added that, according to his own 
 watch, it was quarter past one o'clock. 
 
 There are two views, sir, in which this occurrence may well deserve 
 to be noticed. One is a connexion which it may perhaps have with the 
 loss of the Fortification bill ; the other is, its general importance, as in- 
 troducing a new rule, or a new practice, respecting the intercourse be- 
 tween the President and the House of Congress on the last day of the 
 session. 
 
 On the first point, I shall only observe that the fact of the President's 
 having declined to receive this communication from the Senate, and of 
 his having left the Capitol, was immediately known in the House of 
 Representatives ; that it was quite obvious that if he could not receive 
 a communication from the Senate, neither could he receive a bill from 
 the House of Representatives for his signature. It was equally obvious, 
 that if, under these circumstances, the House of Representatives should 
 agree to the report of the committee of conference, so that the bill 
 should pass, it must, nevertheless, fail to become a law, for want of the 
 President's signature ; and that, in that case, the blame of losing the 
 bill, on whomsoever else it might fall, could not be laid upon the Senate. 
 
 On the more general point, I must say, sir, that this decision of the 
 President, not to hold communication with the Houses of Congress 
 after 12 o'clock, on the 3d of March, is quite new. No such objection 
 has ever been made before, by any President. No one of them has ever 
 declined communicating with either House at any time during the con- 
 tinuance of its session on that day. All Presidents, heretofore, have 
 left it with the Houses themselves to fix their hour of adjournment, and 
 to bring their session, for the day, to a close, whenever they saw fit. 
 
 It is notorious, in point of fact, that nothing is more common than 
 for both Houses to sit later than 12 o'clock, for the purpose of complet- 
 ing measures which are in the last stages of their progress. Amend- 
 
12 
 
 ments are proposed and agreed to, bills passed, enrolled bills signed by 
 the presiding officers, and other important legislative acts performed 
 often at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning. All this is very well known to 
 gentlemen who have been for any considerable time members of Con- 
 gress. And all Presidents have signed bills, and have also made nomi- 
 nations to the Senate, without objection as to time, whenever bills have 
 been presented for signature, or whenever it became necessary to make 
 nominations to the Senate, at any time during the session of the respec- 
 tive Houses on that day. 
 
 And all this, sir, I suppose to be perfectly right, correct, and legal. 
 There is no clause of the Constitution, nor is there any law, which de- 
 clares that the term of office of members of the House of Representa- 
 tives shall expire at 12 o'clock at night on the 3d of March. They are 
 to hold for two years, but the precise hour for the commencement of 
 that term of two years is nowhere fixed by Constitution or legal provis- 
 ion. It has been established by usage and by inference, and very prop- 
 erly established, that, since the first Congress commenced its existence, 
 on the first Wednesday in March, 1789, which happened to be the 4th 
 day of the month, therefore, the 4th of March is the day of the com- 
 mencement of each successive term, but no hour is fixed by law or 
 practice. The true rule is, as I think, most undoubtedly that the ses- 
 sion holden on the last day constitutes the last day, for all legislative and 
 legal purposes. While the session commenced on that day continues, 
 the day itself continues, according to the established practice both of 
 legislative and judicial bodies. This could not well be otherwise. If 
 the precise moment of actual time were to settle such a matter, it would 
 be material to ask, who shall settle the time ? Shall it be done bv pub- 
 lic authority, or shall every man observe the tick of his own watch ? If 
 absolute time is to furnish a precise rule, the excess of a minute, it is 
 obvious, would be as fatal as the excess of an hour. Sir, no bodies, 
 judicial or legislative, have ever been so hypercritical, so astute to no 
 purpose, so much more nice than wise, as to govern themselves by any 
 such ideas. The session for the day, at whatever hour it commences, 
 or at whatever hour it breaks up, is the legislative day. Every thing 
 has reference to the commencement of that diurnal session. For in- 
 stance, this is the 14th day of January; we assembled here to day at 
 12 o'clock ; our journal is dated January 14th, and if we should remain 
 here until 5 o'clock to morrow morning, (and the Senate has sometimes 
 sat so late) our proceedings would still bear date of the 14th of Jan- 
 uary ; they would be so stated upon the journal, and the journal is a 
 record, and is a conclusive record, so far as respects the proceedings of 
 the body. 
 
 It is so injudicial proceedings. If a man were on trial for his life, 
 at a late hour on the last day allowed by law for the holding of the court, 
 and the jury acquitted him, but happened to remain so long in delibera- 
 tion that they did not bring in their verdict till after twelve o'clock, is it 
 all to be held for nought, and the man to be tried over again ? Are all 
 verdicts, judgments, and orders of courts, null and void, if made after 
 midnight, on the day which the law prescribes as the last day ? It would 
 
13 
 
 be easy to show by authority, if authority could be wanted for a thing, 
 the reason of which is so clear, that the day lasts while the daily session 
 lasts. When the court or the legislative body adjourns for that day, the 
 day is over, and not before. 
 
 I am told, indeed, sir, that it is true that, on this same 3d dny of 
 March last, not only were other things transacted, but that the bill for 
 the repair of the Cumberland road, an important and much litigated 
 measure, actually received the signature of our presiding officer after 12 
 o'clock, was then sent to the President, and signed by him. I do not 
 affirm this, because I took no notice of the time, or do not remember it 
 if I did ; but I have heard the matter so stated. 
 
 1 see no reason, sir, for the introduction of this new practice : no 
 principle on which it can be justified, no necessity for it, no propriety 
 in it. As yet, it has been applied only to the President's intercourse 
 with the Senate. Certainly it is equally applicable to his intercourse 
 with both Houses in legislative matters : and if it is to prevail hereafter, 
 it is of much importance that it should be known. 
 
 The President of the United States, sir, has alluded to this loss of 
 the Fortification bill in his message at the opening of the session, and he 
 has alluded also, in the same message, to the rejection of the vote of the 
 three millions. On the first point, that is, the loss of the whole bill, and 
 the causes of that loss, this is his language : 
 
 " Much loss and inconvenience have been experienced in conse- 
 quence of the failure of the bill containing the ordinary appropriations, 
 for fortifications, which passed one branch of the National Legislature 
 at the last session, but was lost in the other." 
 
 If the President intended to say that the bill, having originated in the 
 House of Representatives, passed the Senate, and was yet afterwards 
 lost in the House of Representatives, he was entirely correct. But he 
 has been altogether wrongly informed, if he intended to state, that the 
 bill, having passed the House, was lost in the Senate. As I have al- 
 ready stated, the bill was lost in the House of Representatives. It drew 
 its last breath there. That House never let go its hold on it after the 
 report of the committees of conference. But it held it, it retained it, and 
 of course, it died in its possession when the House adjourned. It is to 
 be regretted that the President should have been misinformed in a matter 
 of this kind, when the slightest reference to the journals of the two 
 Houses would have exhibited the correct history of the transaction. 
 
 I recur again, Mr. President, to the proposed grant of the three mil- 
 lions, for the purpose of stating somewhat more distinctly the true 
 grounds of objection to that grant. 
 
 These grounds of objection were two : the first was, that no such ap- 
 propriation had been recommended by the President, or any of the De- 
 partments. And what made this ground the stronger was, that the pro- 
 posed grant was defended, so far as it was defended at all, upon an alleged 
 necessity, growing out of our foreign relations. The foreign relations of 
 the country are entrusted by the Constitution to the lead and management 
 of the Executive Government. The President not only is supposed to be, 
 
14 
 
 but usually is, much better informed on these interesting subjects than the 
 Houses of Congress. If there be a danger of rupture with a foreign State, 
 he sees it soonest. All our ministers and agents abroad are but so many 
 eyes and ears and organs to communicate to him whatsoever occurs in for- 
 eign places, and to keep him well advised of all which may concern the in- 
 terests of the United States. There is an especial propriety, therefore, 
 that, in this branch of the public service, Congress should always be able 
 to avail itself of the distinct opinions and recommendations of the Pre- 
 sident. The two Houses, and especially the House of Representatives, 
 are the natural guardians of the People's money. They are to keep it 
 sacred, and to use it discreetly- They are not at liberty to spend it 
 where it is not needed, nor to offer it for any purpose till a reasonable 
 occasion for the expenditure be shown. Now in this case, I repeat, 
 again, the President had sent us no recommendation for any such appro- 
 priation ; no Department had recommended it ; no estimate had con- 
 tained it ; in the whole history of the session, from the morning of the 
 first day, down to 8 o'clock in the evening of the last day, not one syl- 
 lable had been said to us, not one hint suggested, showing that the Pre- 
 sident deemed any such measure either necessary or proper. I state 
 this strongly, sir, but I state it truly : I state the matter as it is ; and I 
 wish to draw the attention of the Senate and of the country strongly to 
 this part of the case. I say again, therefore, that when this vote for the 
 three millions was proposed to the Senate, there was nothing before us, 
 showing that the President recommended any such appropriation. You 
 very well know, sir, that this objection was immediately stated as soon 
 as the message from the House was read. We all well remember that 
 was the very point put forth by the honorable member from Tennessee 
 (Mr. White), as being, if I may say so, the butt-end of his argument in 
 opposition to the vote. He said, very significantly, and very forcibly, 
 "it is not asked for by those who best know what the public service re- 
 quires ; how then are we to presume that it is needed ?" This question, 
 sir, was not answered then : it never has been answered since ; it never 
 can be answered satisfactorily. 
 
 But let me here again, sir, recur to the message of the President. 
 Speaking of the loss of the bill, he uses these words : 
 
 " This failure was the more regretted, not only because it necessarily 
 interrupted and delayed the progress of a system of national defence pro- 
 jected immediately after the last war, and since steadily pursued, but 
 also because it contained a contingent appropriation, inserted in accord- 
 ance with the views of the Executive, in aid of this important object, 
 and other branches of the national defence, some portions of which 
 might have been most usefully applied during the past season." 
 
 Taking these words of the message, sir, and connecting them with 
 the fact that the President had made no recommendation to Congress of 
 any such appropriation, it strikes me they furnish matter for very grave 
 reflection. The President says that this proposed appropriation, was 
 " in accordance with the views of the Executive ;" that it was " in aid 
 of an important object ;" and that "some portions of it might have been 
 most usefully applied during the past season." 
 
15 
 
 And now sir, I ask, if this be so, why was not this appropriation 
 recommended to Congress by the President ? I ask this question in the 
 name of the Constitution of the United States ; I stand on its own clear 
 authority in asking it ; and I invite all those who remember its injunc- 
 tions, and who mean to respect them, to consider well how the question 
 is to be answered. 
 
 Sir, the Constitution is not yet an enfire dead letter. There is yet 
 some form of observance to its requirements ; and even while any de- 
 gree of formal respect is paid to it, I must be permitted to continue the 
 question, why was not this appropriation recommended ? It was in ac- 
 cordance with the President's views ; it was for an important object ; it 
 might have been usefully expended. The President being of opinion, 
 therefore, that the appropriation was necessary and proper, how is it that 
 it was not recommended to Congress ? For, sir, we all know the plain 
 and direct words in which the very first duty of the President is imposed 
 by the Constitution. Here they are : 
 
 " He shall, from time to time, give to the Congress information of 
 the stale of the Union, and recommend to their consideration such 
 measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient." 
 
 After enumerating the poioers of the President, this is the first, the 
 very first duty which the Constitution gravely enjoins upon him. And 
 now, sir, in no language of taunt or reproach, in no language of party 
 attack, in terms of no asperity or exaggeration, but called upon by the 
 necessity of defending my own vote upon the subject, I now, as a pub- 
 lic man, as a member of Congress here in my place, and as a citizen 
 who feels as warm an attachment to the Constitution of the country, as 
 any other can, demand of any who may choose to give it, an answer to 
 this question : " Why was not this measure, which the Presi- 
 dent DECLARES THAT HE THOUGHT NECESSARY AND EXPEDIENT, 
 
 recommended to Congress ?" And why am I, and why are other 
 members of Congress, whose path of duty the Constitution says shall be 
 enlightened by the President's opinions and communications, to be 
 charged with want of patriotism and want of fidelity to the country, be- 
 cause we refused an appropriation which ihe President, though it was in 
 accordance with his views, and though he believed it important, would 
 not, and did not, recommend to us ? When these questions are answer- 
 ed, sir, to the satisfaction of intelligent and impartial men, then, and not 
 till then, let reproach, let censure, let suspicion of any kind rest on the 
 twenty-nine names which stand opposed to this appropriation. 
 
 How, sir, were we to know that this appropriation " was in accord- 
 ance with the views of the Executive ?" He had not so told us, form- 
 ally or informally. He had not only not recommended it to Congress, 
 or either House of Congress, but nobody on this floor had undertaken 
 to speak in his behalf. No man got up to say, " the President's desire 
 is, he thinks it necessary, expedient, and proper." But, sir, if any 
 gentleman had risen to say this, it would not have answered the requisi- 
 tion of the Constitution. Not at all. It is not a hint, an intimation, the 
 suggestion of a friend, by which the Executive duty in this respect is to 
 be fulfilled. By no means. The President is to make a recommenda- 
 
16 
 
 tion ; a public recommendation, an official recommendation, a responsi- 
 ble recommendation, not to one House, but to botb Houses ; it is to be 
 a recommendation to Congress. If, on receiving such recommendation, 
 Congress fail to pay it proper respect, the fault is theirs. If, deeming 
 the measure necessary and expedient, the President fail to recommend 
 it, the fault is his, clearly, distinctly, and exclusively his. This, sir, is 
 the Constitution of the United Slates, or else 1 do not understand the 
 Constitution of the United States. Does not every man see how per- 
 fectly unconstitutional it is that the President should communicate his 
 opinions or wishes to Congress on such grave and important subjects, 
 otherwise than by a direct and responsible recommendation — a public 
 and open recommendation, equally addressed and equally known to all 
 whose duty calls upon them to act on the subject ? What would be the 
 state of things, if he might communicate his wishes or opinions privately 
 to members of one House, and make no such communication to the 
 other ? Would not the two Houses be necessarily put in immediate col- 
 lision ? Would they stand on equal footing ? Would they have equal in- 
 formation ? What could ensue from such a manner of conducting the 
 public business, but quarrel, confusion, and conflict ? A member rises 
 in the House of Representatives, and moves a very large appropriation 
 of money for military purposes. If he says he does it upon Executive 
 recommendation, where is his voucher ? The President is not like the 
 British King, whose ministers and secretaries are in the House of Com- 
 mons, and who are authorized, in certain cases, to express the opinions 
 and wishes of their sovereign. We have no king's servants ; at least 
 we have none known to the Constitution. Congress can know the opin- 
 ions of the President only as he officially communicates them. It would 
 be a curious inquiry in either House, when a large appropriation is mo- 
 ved, if it were necessary to ask whether the mover represented the Pre- 
 sident, spoke his sentiments, or in other words, whether what he pro- 
 posed were "in accordance with the views of the Executive?' How 
 could that be judged of ? By the party he belongs to ? Party is not 
 quite unique enough for that. By the airs he gives himself? Many 
 might assume airs, if thereby they could give themselves such impor- 
 tance as to be esteemed authentic expositors of the Executive will. Or 
 is this will to be circulated in whispers ? made known to the meetings 
 of party men ? intimated through the press? or communicated in any 
 other form, which still leaves the Executive completely irresponsible ? So 
 that while Executive purposes or wishes pervade the ranks of party 
 friends, influence their conduct, and unite their efforts, the open, direct, 
 and constitutional responsibility is wholly avoided. Sir, this is not the 
 Constitution of the United States, nor can it be consistent with any 
 constitution which professes to maintain separate departments in the Gov- 
 ernment. 
 
 11 ere, then, sir, is abundant ground, in my judgment, for the vote of 
 the Senate, and here I might rest it. But there is also another ground. 
 The Constitution declares that no money shall be drawn from the 
 Treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law. What 
 is meant by u appropriations ?" Does this language not mean that par- 
 
17 
 
 ticular sums shall be assigned, by law, to particular objects ? How far 
 this pointing out and fixing the particular objects shall be carried, is a 
 question that cannot be settled by any precise rule. But " specific ap- 
 propriations," that is to say, the designation of every object for which 
 money is voted, as far as such designation is practicable, has been 
 thought to be a most important republican principle. In times past, 
 popular parties have claimed great merit from professing to carry this 
 doctrine much farther, and to adhere to it much more strictly than their 
 adversaries. Mr. Jefferson, especially, was a great advocate for it, and 
 held it to be indispensable to a safe and economical administration and 
 disbursement of the public revenues. 
 
 But what have the friends and admirers of Mr. Jefferson to say to 
 this appropriation ? Where do they find, in this proposed grant of 
 three millions, designation of object, and particular and specific applica- 
 tion of money ? Have they forgotten, all forgotten, and wholly aban- 
 doned, even all pretence for specific appropriation ? If not, how could 
 they sanction such a vote as this ? Let me recall its terms. They are, 
 that " the sum of three millions of dollars be, and the same hereby is 
 appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropri- 
 ated, to be expended, in whole or in part, under the direction of the 
 President of the United States, for the military and naval service, in- 
 cluding fortifications and ordnance, and to increase the navy ; provided 
 such expenditures shall be rendered necessary for the defence of the 
 country, prior to the next meeting of Congress." 
 
 In the first place it is to be observed, that whether the money shall be 
 used at all or not, is made to depend on the discretion of the President. 
 This is sufficiently liberal. It carries confidence far enough. But, if 
 there had been no other objections, if the objects of the appropriation 
 had been sufficiently described, so that the President, if he expended 
 the money at all, must have expended it for purposes authorized by the 
 Legislature, and nothing had been left to his discretion but the question, 
 whether an emergency had arisen, in which the authority ought to be 
 exercised, I might not have felt bound to reject the vote. There are 
 some precedents which might favor such a contingent provision, though 
 the practice is dangerous, and ought not to be followed except in cases 
 of clear necessity. 
 
 But the insurmountable objection to the proposed grant was, that it 
 specified no objects. It was as general as language could make it. It 
 embraced every expenditure that could be called either military or naval. 
 It was to include " fortifications, ordnance, and increase of the navy," 
 but it was not confined to these. It embraced the whole general subject 
 of military service. Under the authority of such a law, the President 
 might repair ships, build ships, buy ships, enlist seamen, and do any- 
 thing and everything else touching the naval service, without restraint or 
 control. 
 
 He might repair such fortifications as he saw fit, and neglect the rest ; 
 
 arm such as he saw fit, and neglect the arming of others ; or build new 
 
 fortifications whenever he chose. But these unlimited powers over the 
 
 fortifications and the navy constitute, by no means, the most dangerous 
 
 3 
 
18 
 
 part of the proposed authority ; because, under that authority, his pow- 
 er to raise and employ land forces was equally absolute and uncontroll- 
 ed. He might levy troops, embody a new army, call out the militia in 
 numbers to suit his own discretion, and employ them as he saw fit. 
 
 Now, sir, does our legislation, under our Constitution, furnish any 
 precedent for all this ? 
 
 We make appropriation for the army, and we understand what we are 
 doing, because it is " the army," that is to say, the army established by 
 law. We make appropriations for the navy ; they too, are for " the 
 navy," as provided tor and established by law. We make appropria- 
 tions for fortifications, but we say what fortifications, and we assign to 
 each its intended amount of the whole sum. This is the usual course 
 of Congress on such subjects ; and why should it be departed fiom ? 
 Are we ready to say that the power of fixing the places for new fortifica- 
 tions, and the sum allotted to each ; the power of ordering new ships 
 to be built, and fixing the number of such new ships ; the power of lay- 
 ing out money to raise men for the army ; in short, every power, great 
 and small, respecting the military and naval service, shall be vested in 
 the President, without specification of object or purpose, or the entire 
 exclusion of the exercise of all judgment on the part of Congress ? For 
 one, I am not prepared. The honorable member from Ohio, near me, 
 has said, that if, the enemy had been on our shores he would not have 
 agreed to this vote. And I say, if the proposition were now before us, 
 and the guns of the enemy were battering against the walls of the Capi- 
 tol, I would not agree to it. 
 
 The people of this country have an interest, a property, an inherit- 
 ance in this Instrument, against the value of which forty Capitols do 
 not weigh the twentieth part of one poor scruple. There can never be 
 any necessity for such proceedings but a feigned and false necessity ; 
 a mere idle and hollow pretence of necessity ; least of all, can it be said 
 that any such necessity actually existed on the 3d of March. There 
 was no enemy on our shores ; there were no guns pointed against the 
 Capitol ; we were in no war, nor was there a reasonable probability 
 that we should have war, unless we made it ourselves. 
 
 But whatever was the state of our foreign relations, is it not prepos- 
 terous to say, that it was necessary for Congress to adopt this measure, 
 and yet not necessary for the President to recommend it ? Why should 
 we thus run in advance of all our own duties, and leave the President 
 completely shielded firm his just responsibility ? Why should there be 
 nothing but grant, and trust, and confidence, on our side, and nothing 
 but discretion and power, on his ? 
 
 Sir, if there be any philosophy in history ; if human blood still runs 
 in human veins, if man still conforms to the identity of his nature, the 
 institutions which secure constitutional liberty can never stand long 
 against this excessive personal confidence, against this devotion to men 
 — in utter disregard both of principle and experience, which seems to 
 me to be strongly characteristic of our times. This vote came to us, 
 sir, from the popular branch of the Legislature ; and that such a vote 
 should come from such a branch of the Legislature, was amongst the 
 
19 
 
 circumstances which excited in me the greatest surprise and the deepest 
 concern. Certainly, sir, certainly I was not, on that account, the more 
 inclined to concur. It was no argument with me that others seemed to 
 be rushing, with such heedless, headlong trust, such impetuosity of con- 
 fidence, into the arms of Executive power. I held hack the stronger, 
 and would hold back the longer. I see, or I think I see, it is either a 
 true vision of the future, revealed by the history of the past, or, if it be 
 an illusion, it is an illusion which appears to me in all the brightness and 
 sunlight of broad noon, that it is in this career of personal confidence, 
 along this beaten track of man-worship, marked, every furlong, by the 
 fragments of other free Governments, that our own system is making pro- 
 gress to its close. A personal popularity, honorably earned, at first by 
 military achievements, and sustained now by party, by patronage, and 
 b.y enthusiasm which looks for no ill, because it means no ill itself, seems 
 to render men willing to gratify power, even before its demands are 
 made, and to surfeit Executive discretion, even in anticipation of its own 
 appetite. Sir, if, on the the 3d of March last, it had been the purpose 
 of both Houses of Congress to create a military dictator, what formula 
 had been better suited to their purpose than this vote of the House ? It 
 is true, we might have given more money, if we had had it to give. 
 
 We might have emptied the Treasury ; but as to the form of the gift, 
 we could not have bettered it. Rome had no better models. When 
 we give our money for any military purpose whatever, what remains to 
 be done ? If we leave it with one man to decide, not only whether the 
 military means of the country shall be used at all, but how they shall be 
 used, and to what extent they shall be employed, what remain either for 
 Congress or the People but to sit still, and see how this dictatorial power' 
 will be exercised ? On the 3d of March, sir, I had not forgotten — it 
 was impossible that I should have forgotten — the recommendation in the 
 message, at the opening of that session, that power should be vested in 
 the President to issue letters of marque and reprisal against France, at 
 his discretion, in the recess of Congress. Happily this power was not 
 granted, but suppose it had been, what would then have been the true 
 condition of this Government ? Why, sir, this condition is very short- 
 ly described. The whole war power would have been in the hands of the 
 President ; for no man can doubt a moment that reprisals would bring on 
 immediate war ; and the Treasury, to the amount of this vote, in addi- 
 tion to all ordinary appropriations, would have been at his absolute dis- 
 posal also. And all this in a time of peace. I beseech all true lovers of con- 
 stitutional liberty, to contemplate this state of things, and tell me whether 
 such be a true republican administration of this Government. Whether 
 particular consequences had ensued or not, is such an accumulation of 
 power in the hands of the Executive according to the spirit of our sys- 
 tem ? Is it either wise or safe ? Has it any warrant in the practice of 
 former times ? Or are gentlemen ready to establish the practice, as an 
 example for the benefit of those who are to come after us ? 
 
 But, sir, if the power to make reprisals, and this money from the 
 Treasury, had both been granted, is there not great reason to believe 
 that we should have been now up to our ears in a hot war ? I think 
 
20 
 
 ^ 
 
 ihere is great reason to believe this. It will be said, I know, that if we 
 bad armed the President with this power of war, and supplied him with 
 this grant of money, France would have taken this lor such a proof of 
 spirit on our part, and that she would have paid the indemnity without 
 further delay. This is the old story, and the old plea. Every one who 
 desires more power than the Constitution or the Laws give him, always J 
 says, that if he had more power, be could do more good. Power is al- 
 ways claimed for the good of the People ; and dictators are always made, 
 when made at all, for the good of the People. For my part, sir, I was 
 content, and am content, to show France that we are prepared to main- 
 tain our just rights, against her, by the exertion of our power, when need 
 be, according to the forms of our own Constitution ; that, if we make war, 
 we will make it constitutionally ; and that we will trust all our interests, 
 both in peace and war, to what the intelligence and the strength of the 
 country may do for them, without breaking down or endangering the 
 fabric of the U-ee institutions. 
 
 Mr, President, it is the misfortune of the Senate to have differed with 
 the President on many great questions during the last four or five years. 
 I have regretted this state of things deeply, both on personal and on 
 public account ; but it has been unavoidable. It is no pleasant employ- 
 ment, it is no holiday business, to maintain opposition against power and 
 against majorities, and to contend for stern and sturdy principle, against 
 personal popularity, against a rushing and Overwhelming confidence, 
 that, by wave upon wave, and cataract after cataract, seems to be bear- 
 ing away and destroying whatsoever would withstand it. How much 
 longer we may be able to support this opposition in any degree, or 
 whether we can possibly hold out till the public intelligence and the pub- 
 lic patriotism shall be awakened to a due sense of the public danger, it 
 is not for me to foretell. I shall not despair to the last, if in the mean 
 time, we be true to our own principles. If there be a steadfast adherence 
 to these principles, both here and elsewere, if, one and all, they con- 
 tinue the rule of our conduct in the Senate, and the rallying point of 
 those who think with us and support us out of the Senate, I am content 
 to hope on, and to struggle on. While it remains a contest for the pre- 
 servation of the Constitution, for the security of public liberty, for the 
 ascendency of principles over men, I am willing to bear my part of it. 
 If we can maintain the Constitution, if we can preserve this security for 
 liberty, if we can thus give to true principle its just superiority over 
 party, over persons, over names, our labors will be richly rewarded. If 
 we fail in all this, they arc already among the living, who will write the 
 history of this Government, from its commencement to its close.