The Congressional Globe, Volume 13, Part 1: Twenty-Eighth Congress, First Session Page: 285
xxiv, 696 p. ; 25 cm.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
JiT-i
By Mr. DANA: Petition of seventy-four citizens
of Tompkins and Chemung counties, New York,
for a post route from Ithaca to Havana. Petition of
one hundred and sixty-six citizens of Hector, New
York, for the abolition of the franking privilege, and
reduction of postage: referred to the Committee on
the Post Office and Post Roads.
By Mr. YOST: Petition of Susanna Warner, of
Montgomery county, Pennsylvania, praying for a
pension in consideration of the services of her late
husband in the revolutionary war: referred JBfehe*
Committee on Revolutionary Pensions.
By Mr. SMITH of Illinois: Petition of sundry
citizens of St. Clair, and other counties, in Illinois,
praying a change in the mail route from Shawnee-
town to Bellville: referred to the Committee on the
Post Office and Post Roads.
By Mr. BRODHEAD: Petition signed by forty
citizens of Warren and Carbon counties, in Penn-
sylvania, praying for the establishment of a mail
route from Stroudsburg, the seat ofjustice ofMonroe
county, via Snydersville, Fennersville, crossing the
Wilkesburg turnpike, at or near Joseph Altemose's
mill, thence through* the townships of Ross and
lower Towamensing, to the Lehigh Water Gap, a
distance of thirty-three miles.
IN SENATE.
Friday, February 16, 1844.
Mr. BARROW presented a memorial from Jas.
McPharlan, late physician of the naval hospital at
New Orleans, praying to be paid a certain sum of
money improperly withheld from him by the ac-
counting officers of the treasury: referred totjMfem-
mittee on Claims.
On motion by Mr. BAYARD, the ComSBJPon
Naval Affairs was discharged from the further con-
sideration of the petition of Charles S. Williamson,
and leave was granted to the petitioner to withdraw
his petition, for the purpose of testing his claim to a
pension under existing law, before the proper de-
partment.
Mr. TALLMADGE presented a petition from
Susan Brown, the widow of a deceased naval offi-
cer, praying that the pension which she received for
the services of her husband, until the year 1838,
may be restored to her: referred to the Committee
on Pensions.
Mr. ATCHISON presented a petition signed by
Solon Miller and other citizens of Linn county,
Missouri, asking Congress to establish a post office
at Sigler's mills, in that county: referred to the
Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads.'
Mr. WRIGHT presented a memorial from the
Chamber of Commerce of New York, on the subject
of the consular system of China, urging that those
appointed as consuls in the ports there may be given
salaries: referred to the Committee on Commerce.
Mr. SEMPLE submitted the following resolu-
tion; which lies one day on the table:
Resolved, That the President ofthe United States be
requested to furnish to the Senate a copy of the re-
port recently made by Captain Cram, of the corps
of topographical engineers, upon the survey of the
harbor of St. Louis, with its accompanying charts,
maps, plans, and estimates.
Mr. JARNAGIN, from the Committee on Pen-
sions, made an adverse report on the petition of
Wareham Kmgsley, praying for an invalid pension;
which was ordered to lie on the table, and be
printed.
On motion, it was ordered, that, when the Senate
adjourn, it adjourn to meet on Monday next.
PEA PATCH ISLAND.
On motion by Mr. BAGBY, the bill (which, a
few days ago, on his motion, was laid on the table)
providing for the settlement of the Pea Patch island,
in the river Delaware, was taken up for considera-
tion; the question being on ordering the bill to be
engrossed for a third reading.
Mr. BAGBY remarked that it had been his in-
tention, when he moved to lay the bill on the table,
to enter into the discussion of Us merits; but since
that time, and after an examination of the whole
question, he was satisfied of the propriety of the
vote he should give. He would therefore decline
prolonging a discussion upon it, as he had no desire
to consume the time of the Senate, and no expecta-
tion that any further discussion on it would have the
effect to change the vote he should give.
The bill was then ordered to be engrossed for a
third reading.
Mr. BUCHANAN presented a memorial fiom
Evelina Porter, the widow of David porter, form-
erly a captain in the navy of the United States, and
late minister resident of the United State# at Con-
stantinople, representing that Congress refused to
grant him an outfit as minister. [Mr. B, believed
that a bill passed the Senate for that purpose, once or
twice; but that it was either defeated, or not acted
upon in the House.] The memorialist also states
that whilst her husband was in the naval service of
the country, he contributed largely to the naval pen-
sion fund; and asks that Congress will place her
name on the list of pensioners, on the same footing as
the widows of other officers of equal rank, who
died in the service of the United States. On mo-
tion by Mr. B., the part of the memorial relating to
the outfit, was referred to the Committee on Foreign
Relations, and the other portion to the Committee on
Naval Affairs.
Mr. B. also presented a memorial from P. S. Lit-
tle, and 25 other citizens of Northampton county,
Pennsylvania, praying for the passage of a law ex-
empting canal boats employed in the coal trade, and
in transporting merchandise, from paying coasting
licenses: referred to the Committee on Commerce.
The bill to confirm the survey and location of
lands in the State of Mississippi, east of Pearl river,
and south of the 31st degree of latitude, was taken
up, as in committee of the whole, on numerous
amendments reported from the Committee on Public
Lands.
Mr. HENDERSON said it was the same bill
which passed the Senate before, without any
change or modification whatever. It was sim-
ply a bill to confirm the survey made by
the government of the United States in the dis-
trict of country in Mississippi lying south of the
31 st degree of north latitude, across that State
from the border of Louisiana, to the border of Ala-
bama. There were about four hundred claims to
be settled under the bill-—claims of those settled
there, who failed or did not show written evidence
of title, or did not succeed in establishing their titles
under a former act of Congress. The land, he said,
was not worth a resurvcy, inasmuch as the lands
have been so long occupied by the claimants, a re-
survey of them would be a source of great annoy-
ance and alarm. The committee thought it would be
betterto confirm the surveys as they are. Thebillhad
received the sanction of the parties informally, and
the plan proposed by it was the most proper and
economical mode that could be suggested.
The several amendments proposed by the Com-
mittee on the Public Lands were then agreed to.
Mr. KING was apprehensive that the third sec-
tion of the bill, which allowed those who were dis-
satisfied with the present survey to have a resurvey
of their tract, would be productive of the expenses
and evils the bill was intended to guard against; and
moved to strike out; but after a few remarks by
Messrs. WOODBRIDGE and HENDERSON, in
explanation, which partly removed the objection, he
withdrew the motion.
The bill was then reported back to the Senate,
and the amendments were concurred in; and it was
ordered to be engrossed and read a third time.
The engrossed bill to authorize a survey of the
mouth of" Red river, and for other purposes, was
read the third time, and passed.
On motion of Mr. BERRIEN, the message of the
President of the United States, covering a communi-
cation from the governor of Kentucky, on the sub-
ject of authorizing a publication of a digest of the
decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States,
was taken from the table, and referred to the Com-
mittee on the Judiciary.
THE COMPROMISE ACT THE TARIFF.
Oil motion by Mr. EYANS, the Senate resumed
the consideration of the resolution of the Finance
Committee to postpone indefinitely the bill intro-
duced by Mr. MoDuffie to reduce the rates of du-
ties under the present tariff to the standard of the
compromise act.
Mr. PHELPS addressed the Senate in support of
the tariff for two hours. He said he could not
agree with the views of the honorable senator from
Maine, in regard to discussion on this subject being
either useless or a waste of time. It was certainly a
subject on which nothing new couid be advanced on
either side; nor was it possible, by protracted con-
sideration, to impart to any member of the Senate
information relating to it that he was not before pos-
sessed of. But there were other reasons for con-
tinuing the discussion. The matter was, to their
constituents, of the deepest importance; and he
thought- they were entitled to know- the reasons
that mflxienced-each member of that body in voting
for or against the measure. Whatever deoisionthe
Senate might come to, would have to go forward to
the great mass of the American-people, who would
affix to it the seal of assent or disapproval when the
time arrived for th*5*n to pronounce judgment on
their representatives. -It was, therefore, -from the
conviction that their constituents were entitled to
know their reasons, for voting on-this highly -im-
portant question, that he was in favor of full and
free discussion. The honorable senator from South
Carolina described the bill of 1842 as pregnant with
absolute and inevitable ruin; while he, on the other
hand, viewed it as essential to the salvation and hap-
piness of the country. That honorable senator
also stated it to be a foul and faithless vioJatipn
of the compromise act of 1833. This was strong
language; but when it fell on Ms ear, it struck him
as commg warmly from the heart, in the heat of the
moment, withovit meaning as much as the words, if
deliberately used, would convey. He (Mr. P.) was
one of those who voted for the act of 1849; and the
more he reflected on that vote, the more he felt satis-
fied with it. He was convinced that the opinions
of gentlemen opposed to that act, that it conflicted
with the compromise act, were not founded on fact.
The compromise act was framed, in the first instance,
to provide for our home interests, and for the pay-
ment of cash duties. So far, there was no differ-
ence, as the act of 1842 retained the same provis-
ions. Again: the compromise act provided for the
imposition of duties sufficient to meet the national
expenditure, but no further. The amount author-
ized to be levied by the compromise act was limited
to a bare sufficiency to meet the actual wants of
government; and he would ask, does any gentleman
pretend to say that the amount of revenue under the
bill of 1842 transcends the sum thus allowed by the
former bill? He need not say that, under the opera-
tion of the tariff, the treasury was not overflowing;
nor was there, under it, more duties levied than was
barely sufficient for carrying on the operations of
the government. In fact, there was not enough col-
lected; if there was, the government would not be, as
it now was, in debt. The compromise act provided
for the gradual reduction of duties, from 40 per
cent, downwards. Now this clause, from its own
nature, became a dead letter. The bill had no pow-
er to enforce itself, and became exhausted by its
own operations.
This gradual reduction brought down the duties
front June, 1840, to 20 per cent.; and there, it was
contended by the opponents of the tariff, they should
remain, without alteration or revision; and what
argument was offered for so leaving them guarded
against future legislation? Nothing more nor less than
that the bill of 1833 sowilled it. Attempting to im-
prove or alter the bill of 1833 was, then, the only man-
ner in which the bill of 1842 conflicted with it; and
this narrowed the question down to whether one
Congress has the power to repeal or amend a law
passed by its predecessors? If such a doctrine was
admitted, all laws became a nullity, if not worse,
inasmuch as no improvements called for by change
of time or circumstance, dare be introduced or
advocated. No senator, he felt certain, was- pre-
pared to insist on the power of limiting the legisla-
tive functions of his successor. Such a doctrine
would go so far to trammel legislatures in the ex-
ercise of their constitutional duties, that no inde-
pendent man would be found to solicit the suffrages
of the people.
He was at a loss to know on what ground, or by
what authority, he, as a member of the Senate,
could be prohibited from voting for the repeal of the
compromise, or any other subsequent act, which he
conscientiously believed, for the common weal, to
require change or amendment. He wished to know
on what grounds the gentlemen advocating the
compromise act based their efforts to attach to that
act a character of sanctity which would prohibit
action of the legislature on it. In what consisted
its sacredness? When passed, it was not declared
binding on future legislators not to repeal or reverse
it. It was considered at the moment an act of ne-
cessity, and passed midst a conflict of opinions; and
was then, as it continued, no more than any other
act on the statute book of the United States, sub-
ject to such repeal, revisions, or alterations as the
wisdom of future legislators might adopt. It held
not the same character as a bill involving private
contested rights, the very nature of which would
render legislative action on it, Jaal and unalterable,
It was not a measure carried b^manimoua consent;
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
United States. Congress. The Congressional Globe, Volume 13, Part 1: Twenty-Eighth Congress, First Session, book, 1844; Washington D.C.. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth2367/m1/309/: accessed April 28, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.