32D CONG....2D SESS.

Defenseless, perfectly defenseless. And if a war were to break out with any leading European Power, how long could we hold those possessions? Honorable gentlemen seem to be disposed to assert here what they denominate the Monroe doctrine, in such a manner as would be very likely to lead to a war. If you_thus bring on a collision with Great Britain or France, what would become of San Francisco and the other towns situated on the bay of that name? What would become of your Mint and your navy-yard? Sir, that bay is left in such a situation that a miserable privateer, with half a dozen guns, could enter it and lay the city of San Francisco under contribution; an inconsiderable force could ravage the whole coast of California. I do not say they could conquer the State, but I do say they could do infinite mischief. I want, therefore, to hear no more of your Monroe doctrine until you have made some provision for the defense of the Pacific coast. I am for adjourning over the doctrine-Tehuantepec and all other topics of excitation-until this railroad can be constructed. The latter would seem to me an indispensable preliminary to the former. Place us in such a situation that we can in one month throw fifty thousand men on that coast, and you may explode your Monroe doctrine in face of all Europe, for aught I care. We shall then be in a much better situation to defend than any enemy can be to assail. If we have underrated the assailing force, the telegraph will flash the intelligence to Washington, and in ten days we could repair the error by reinforcement. Indeed the mere existence of the road would obviate all danger of attack by any other than a naval force. What European Power would think of sending an army to the Pacific, when they knew that we could meet them with a force of tenfold power by the agency of the proposed railroad? To say that it is inexpedient or unconstitutional to provide for the emergencies of war by the means proposed, is the same thing as to assert that the defense of the country is no part of the duty of this Government. Congress a few sessions since directed a dock, basin and railway to be constructed at the navy-yard in California. So that it seems we have a right to get our ships on to railways. Why not our Army? But there are difficulties likely to result from a war with one of the leading Powers of Europe, other than those already alluded to. If we suppose that we could defend the city of San Francisco, and protect our navy-yard and Mint, it would undoubtedly be in the power of the public enemy to blockade the whole coast, and cut off the transmission of gold from the Pacific to the Atlantic. A good deal has been said in the debates which we have had during the session on our foreign relations-about our having Great Britain under bonds to keep the peace, by means of our cotton bales; but I would ask honorable Senators to look at our own condition. Are there not bonds for good behavior resting upon us, and that too of a pretty serious character? What if your Monroe doctrine should involve us in a war with Great Britain, and she should, by a blockade of the coast, interrupt the communication between California and the Isthmus, how should we get our regular supply of gold? Or if we should escape that difficulty, and be able to land the precious metal on the Isthmus, how could we get it forward to New York? Honorable Senators have expressed a great deal of alarm in regard to what Great Britain has done and may do at the Bay Islands, but in my judgment, it is a question of little importance. With her ascendency on the ocean, she could, whether she does or does not hold those islands, cut off all intercourse between the Pacific and Atlantic coasts, by stationing a superior force on this or the other side, or on both; the result will be the same, whether you have a route by the Isthmus, Nicaragua, or Tehuantepec. Your communications will be interrupted in the event of a war with a superior naval Power, and then what will be the condition of the country, and what will become of our national and commercial credit? The whole of our currency and all of our business engagements and relations are being constituted on the basis of a regular supply of at least five millions of gold per month from California. Indeed, the supply is believed to be much larger, as the gold sent on freight is understood to amount to five millions, and it is known that a large amount reaches New York and

Railroad to the Pacific-Mr. Smith.

other important points by the hands of passengers. What would become of your banks if this supply should be suddenly cut off? They would, every one of them, be blown into the air, and commercial credit would receive such a shock as has never been witnessed in this country. The very moment the war broke out, our national finances would be thrown into disorder and confusion, and the credit of the Government would sink with that of the commercial classes. This monthly supply of gold has got to be just as necessary to us as the cotton bales are to England. A fleet of steamers stationed at Jamaica would effectually arrest the transmission of gold by the Isthmus. The mere apprehension of danger would be enough. Suppose you were to drive Great Britain out of Roatan and the rest of the Bay Islands, will that make your freights of gold safe? Would it do to provoke her to a contest by exploding in her face a half dozen pieces of ordnance, well charged with the "Monroe doctrine?" thing was said here, on a former occasion, about the Gulf of Mexico being a "mare clausum"-an American sea. It is a curious sort of "closed sea," with Great Britain in possession of Jamaica and other islands on one side of it.

Some

I maintain that an effectual interruption of this supply of gold, even for a few months, would be almost fatal to currency and credit. The time is near at hand when California will send us $10,000,000 per month, and perhaps even more; and the loss of this supply, even for three months, would be most seriously felt. The Government would be crippled at the very outset of any war in which we might be involved, and incapacitated in some degree for sacrifices and efforts such as our national honor and interests might require. We should be obliged to have the gold any how, and this could only be done by the inland route. You would be obliged to organize caravans for its transmission, which you would have to protect by detachments from the Army. An escort of at least five hundred men would be required to each caravan, as fifteen or twenty millions in gold would hold out temptations which might lead to combinations and aggressions of a dangerous character. And, then, only think of such a caravan "dragging its slow length along," over mountains and deserts, and reaching the city of New York in about six months. In the mean time, and at the very outset of the war, all your banks will have been exploded, your merchants bankrupted, commercial credit broken down, and alarm and distrust spread through all departments of business, and all the ramifications of society. Probably your Government would be placed in such a situation that it could not borrow a dollar. But, whether this would be so or not, it is certain that the interruption of the supply at the outset of a war, even for three months, would occasion disasters and losses to the Government and people more than equal to the whole cost of this road. The regular transmission of this gold is just as necessary for the national safety and defense as a good supply of powder and ball; and yet honorable Senators tell us we have no right to construct this road. One Senator has a stitch in his conscience on the score of constitutionality. He denies our power to adopt this measure, and insists it is violative of the Constitution. Another Senator has a stitch on the score of expediency, or rather he is for the measure as highly wise and proper, but not now; only adjourn it over to the next Congress, and let us have the surveys. O! the surveys! let us have the surveys! But now is the hour, in my judgment, for taking the initiative in respect to this great enterprise, and I ask it in the name of preparation for war which may come, for which we should be prepared. I ask it as a measure having an important bearing on credit and currency, and as indispensable to both in case of a war with a superior naval power; and I ask it that we may be well prepared on both coasts to repel aggression, and to assert the rights and maintain the honor and the dignity of the American people.

But it must not be inferred from these remarks

that I view war with approbation. I can hardly conceive of a war short of one strictly defensive, which I should look upon with complacency. I think men die fast enough anyhow. There is no necessity of calling into requisition gunpowder to

SENATE.

hasten them into eternity. I am for peace and for cultivating the arts of peace. I am for constructing this railroad in order that we may have peace. I verily believe that the consummation of this vast enterprise would do more to cause us to be respected, nay, to be feared by the nations of the earth, than the erection of twenty fortresses, or the construction of forty ships-of-the-line.

There is another consideration to which I would refer, and which, I doubt not, will be properly appreciated by the Senate. The construction of this road is indispensable to the consolidation of our Union, and to bind the two sides of the continent together by the strong ties of mutual dependence and reciprocal interests. Without the means of prompt and easy communication, it would be better not to have a country on the other side of the Rocky Mountains. The existing state of things is utterly objectionable. I was, in the first instance, strongly opposed to the acquisition of California; but as she has been admitted into the family circle, and now constitutes one of the brightest stars of our national galaxy, I am for holding on to her. I have no idea that her people are or will be disloyal to our Union, but I wish to establish more intimate relations between her and her sister States-those of immediate vicinage, and that a railroad will do. When this is done, no centrifugal force can throw her out of her orbit, but she will maintain her proper place in our system, and will revolve around the common center to the end of all time. Besides, how is this General Government to exercise its functions in California without this railroad, whether in war or peace? Suppose there is an incursion of savages upon the people of some part of that State, and it becomes necessary to repel them. Suppose the officers of the Army or Indian agents need instructions from the Executive at Washington, how are they to obtain them? Why, it requires two sea-voyages to get the information to Washington, and two more to get the instructions back, taking up, I suppose, from two to three months.

Again: suppose there is an insurrection in California, or a sudden attack by some foreign foe, would there not be a necessity for means of immediate communication with the General Government? Suppose some doubt should arise at San Francisco in respect to the construction of your revenue laws. A cargo of goods arrives, and the collector is of the opinion it should pay one rate of duty, and the owner insists on a lower rate, and the collector desires the instructions of the Secretary of the Treasury on the subject, would not the delay of two voyages by sea to reach Washington, and two to get back, be intolerable? Would it not be ruinous to all concerned? How are your post office laws to be administered in California? How are you to administer this Government there at all, without this railroad? If the collector of San Francisco should die, how long must business be interrupted before his place can be filled? If a judge should die, how long must the court be closed and justice delayed? Nothing can be more embarrassing than the dispensation of patronage in California on account of the distance. It is almost impossible to get reliable information, and this the present Administration have experienced to their sorrow. If the distinguished gentleman who is coming here soon to stand at the head of the Government does not encounter şimilar difficulties, I shall be greatly disappointed. I maintain that such a state of things is intolerable, and I think we should not occupy ourselves with any miserable controversy about the Bay Islands or Tehuantepec, but should at once take hold and construct this railroad as a sovereign remedy for all the evils here adverted tc. I want no railroad over foreign countries, unless it be for temporary purposes. I am for an American railroad, to be constructed on American soil, by the enterprise and capital of the American people.

Sir, I have occupied more of the time of the Senate than I intended, but have abbreviated my remarks as much as possible. I have given a mere outline of ideas, some of which may not have occurred to honorable Senators. I now leave the subject in the hands of the Senate. I hope we shall have a vote on it speedily. I hope the bill will pass the Senate, even if it does not pass the House. Should it fail to become a law at this session, I hope the subject will be resumed at the

32D CONG.....2D SESS.

next, at the earliest practicable day. I have two years more, if my life is spared, to remain a member of this body, and if this measure is not now consummated, I will consecrate whatever energies I may have, and whatever ability I can command, to its prosecution at the next Congress. I have also to say to the honorable Senator from Texas, [Mr. Rusk,] who has so intelligently, patriotically, and ably advocated this bill, that I will then stand by him, and go with him, hand to hand and shoulder to shoulder, in efforts to carry through the Senate the proper legislation on this subject. I demand the construction of this railroad as a great American measure-as one which is called for by many weighty considerations-as necessary to enable this Government to exercise its proper functions in time of peace and indispensable to both sides of the continent in time of war, and as adapted in a high degree to promote the stability of our glorious Union, and the prosperity of the whole people.

THE GALPHIN CLAIM.

SPEECH OF HON. A. H. STEPHENS,
OF GEORGIA,

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
January 13, 1853,

On the bill to prevent Frauds upon the Treasury of the United States-in defense of Mr. Corwin-and the Galphin Claim.

Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia, said:

The bill under consideration, Mr. Speaker, is reported by the Select Committee of this House appointed to investigate the Gardiner claim. I do not see any connection which it has with the business submitted to that committee. It seems to be before the House anomalously. I suppose it must have got here by unanimous consent. The committee certainly had no authority from this House to report it. So far as the bill, therefore, is concerned, I shall treat it as an independent measure before this House, as if reported by any individual, and I shall not connect its merits with the investigation of the Gardiner claim, for I see no legitimate connection between it and the subject referred to that committee for investigation. The bill, I believe, is in substance the same as one introduced into the Senate by a Senator from North Carolina, [Mr. BADGER.] In the remarks which I shall make upon its merits, I shall necessarily, in noticing the topics of discussion which it has given rise to, introduce some of the subjects which the gentlemen have alluded to in the progress of the debate. The gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. OLDS,] for instance, who, I believe, addressed the committee first upon this subject, and whose speech is reported for the first time in the Globe of this morning, seems to consider the report of this bill by that committee as confirming his original remarks in relation to the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Corwin. I do not so consider it. I do not consider that there is anything in the report of the committee which can justify such an inference I take this occasion to state to this House that I think the investigation and report of that committee fully and completely exonerates the Secretary of the Treasury from that improper connection with the Gardiner claim which the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. OLDS] seemed to entertain the opinion or suspicion that he held. I notice the following in the report of the gentleman's remarks, and I shall be brief upon this point:

"Mr. Speaker, I will not say that at the time I offered the resolution calling for this committee of investigation, that I had not a settled conviction upon my mind, that Corwin must have known, or at least have strongly suspected, the fraudulent character of this claim. That conviction has not been changed, but greatly confirmed, by the evidence reported by the committee. But, sir, notwithstanding these convictions, I had no purpose of making any such charge in the resolution, knowing the utter impossibility of proving a man's thoughts or impressions. Nothing in the language of the resolution, or in the remarks with which accompanied the resolution, can be construed into such a charge."

Now, sir, I have the remarks of the gentleman as made before this House, in which he says: "Through the investigation of Congress, their Galphinism has been exposed; and Crawford, loaded with the execrations of the American people, has received his passport to perpetual infamy. But Corwin still remains unwhipped of justice. True, sir, his catspaw and accomplice in the fraud is loaded with irons, and is branded by public senti

ment as a perjurer and forger; but the master-moving spirit, the head and brains in the fraud, through the negligence of this House, is still permitted to control the Treasury of the United States."

HO. OF REPS.

Mr. OLDS. That is a quotation from a speech made in July upon entirely another question, in which I referred incidentally to the Galphinism of the country. It had no connection with this resolution whatever.

Is he prepared now before the House to say that he takes this expression back?

Mr. OLDS. No, sir. I say that the remarks I made at the time I offered this resolution, show that I intended to make no such call upon the House for investigation.

Mr. STEPHENS. Then, if the gentleman does not take them back, or modify them, he should make them good. They were remarks made by him in this House and to the country before this committee was raised, as one of the reasons for raising the committee, though they may not have been made at the time the committee was ordered. Now, then, the gentleman ought either to sustain this charge before the House, or modify it. I must consider it as a part of the remarks made by him, which induced the House to raise the committee. This was the gist of the accusation. It is not my purpose at all to discuss the merits of the Gardiner claim; that is, whether it was founded in justice, or whether it was a fabricated fraud from beginning to end. That was not even before the investigating committee. I am free to state, however, from reading the report of this investigation carefully, I concur with the other gentlemen, that my impression is that it is fraudulent. But the subject referred to that committee to investigate, and which, so far as their report is concerned, is now before the House, is his (Mr. Corwin's) "improper" connection with the claim; because the very resolution offered by the gentleman, and passed by this House, stated that

"Whereas a strong suspicion rest rests upon the public mind that fraudulent claims have been allowed by the late Mexican Claim Commission, with one of which it is suspected

quency.

Sir, the founders of our Government, in one of the first acts passed by Congress, after the organization of the Government, sufficiently protected the Treasury of the United States in this particular. If Mr. Corwin acted improperly, you need pass no new law for others; you can now prosecute him, and visit upon him the punishment he deserves; you need not let him pass from defect of the law. I call the attention of the House to the act creating the Treasury Department in 1789, to show that there is no necessity for this bill to meet any future case similar to that then before the committee. I read the eighth section of that

act:

"SEC. 8. And be it further enacted, That no person ap pointed to any office instituted by this act shall, directly or indirectly, be concerned or interested in carrying on the business of trade or commerce, or be owner, in whole or in part, of any sea vessel, or purchase, by himself or another in trust for him, any public lands or other public property, or be concerned in the purchase or disposal of any public securities of any State or of the United States, or take or apply to his own use or emolument or gain, for negotiating or transacting any business in the said Department other than what shall be allowed by law; and if any person shall offend against any of the prohibitions of this act, he shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and forfeit to the United States the penalty of $3,000, and shall, upon conviction, be removed from office, and forever thereafter incapable of holding any office under the United States," &c.

Sir, if Mr. Corwin, as Secretary of the Treasury, was "improperly connected" with this claim against the Treasury, as charged, here is a law of the country that has been in existence since 1789, under which you can proceed against him, and by which you can not only displace him, but disgrace him forever. If, therefore, the committee undertook to recommend this bill to meet Mr. Corwin'u

improperly connected: Therefore,

Resolved, That a committee, consisting of five members of this House, be appointed by the Speaker, to investigate all the facts touching the connection of the said Thomas Corwin, the present Secretary of the Treasury, with the said Gardiner claim; what fee, if any, he was to receive for his services as agent or counsel for said Gardiner; what interest, if any, other than his fee interest, he purchased and held, either directly or indirectly, in said claim, and the amount paid, or stipulated to be paid therefor, and condition of such purchase; at what time he ceased to act as the counsel or agent of said Gardiner; to whom and for what consideration he disposed of his fee interest; to whom and for what consideration he disposed of his one fourth interest in said claim."

The only question, therefore, so far as the report of that committee is concerned, is, whether the Secretary of the Treasury was improperly connected with the claim of which there was a suspicion of fraud attached to it. That is the only question. Well, sir, does not this report of the committee, raised at the instance of the gentleman from Ohio, sufficiently show to us and to the country that there was no improper connection at all on the part of the Secretary of the Treasury with the claim? The gentleman from Ohio attempts to argue not; and the whole of his speech seems to be a sort of censure upon the committee that was raised at his own intsance; at least it so struck me. He seemed to be grumbling at their conclusion. What is that conclusion of the committee on the real point in issue? Here is their language:

"No testimony has been adduced before the committee proving, or tending to prove, that the Hon. Thomas Corwin had any knowledge that the claim of the said Gardiner was fraudulent, or that false testimony or forged papers had been or were to be procured to sustain the same.""

The testimony before the committee shows conclusively that Mr. Corwin had no interest whatever in this claim after he became Secretary of the Treasury; and the committee say that there is no evidence showing, "or tending to show," that even as a private citizen, in his vocation as an attorney, he knew anything at all of the fraud. There is nothing, then, connecting Mr. Corwin improperly with the claim. But, says the gentleman, the committee have reported this bill. Now it is to

from Ohio, that their work is but an act of supererogation. Here is a law quite sufficient for them or him to act upon. My object, sir, is to disconnect this bill, upon which I intend to speak hereafter, entirely from the matter and case referred to that committee. But I wish to premise a few remarks upon the facts reported by that committee, and which have been commented on in the debate.

Now, Mr. Speaker, these facts are, that Mr. Corwin, while he was a Senator of the United States, was employed as an attorney before the Board of Commissioners to adjudicate claims against Mexico in behalf of Gardiner, a claimant, and that he also took an interest by assignment in his claim. These facts are admitted. The gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. JOHNSON,] argued yesterday that it was malum in se; that it was wrong in itself for a member of Congress to up pear as an attorney for fee or reward before any such tribunal. Is that gentleman right in that position? If he is, Mr. Corwin did something wrong in itself, and deserves censure. If not, he is certainly above the reproach of even the most fastidious in what he did. Let us refer to our history on this subject. Every gentleman who hears me knows that it is usual, and has been from the beginning of this Government, for Senators and members of the House to appear as counsel for fee and reward or compensation before the Supreme Court of the United States, to appear before any of the courts of the Union, and before commissioners appointed to adjudicate claims similar to these before just such tribunals as this was. Nay, more; I believe that even anterior to our Revolution, Dr. Franklin did not consider it malum in se to receive fees and act as agent for several of the colonies before the proper departments of the Government of the mother country-Great Britain. He was the regular agent, first of Pennsylvania, then of Massachusetts, and of Georgia, perhaps others of the colonies. I maintain, therefore, that there is nothing in the thing itself which, by the general consent of our countrymen, even the wisest and the best, is, or has been considered, wrong in acting as counsel or attorney, or agent

32D CONG.....2d Sess.

for proper compensation is such a capacity. I believe it is a historical fact, that after the Jay treaty, there was a commission instituted for the adjudication and settlement of claims provided for in that treaty, and that the ablest attorneys in the country at that time, appeared before the board thus constituted-amongst them members of Congress. Again, at the close of the last war with England, under a convention, a similar board was constituted. The celebrated Mr. Pinkney, of the State of Maryland, a distinguished member of this body-an honor to his State, an honor to his country-a man whose eloquence was perhaps never surpassed-a man whose integrity never was questioned, so far as I know,-he, sir, appeared, as I am informed, before that commission and argued important cases as attorney for parties in interest. Who ever heard his conduct questioned?ness Who ever heard an imputation cast upon his character, for thus advocating the rights of those who sought the aid of his legal counsel? I give him as one instance amongst others. But further still. I have a paper before me from which it appears that the Hon. George M. Dallas, while he was Vice President of the United States, received fees for prosecuting, with others, a claim before one of the Departments,-others were engaged with him in the same case, members of Congress of the highest character and the strictest purity. How can men thus employed be said to be employed against the Treasury of the United States? In most instances, the only question is, who among several claimants shall receive a particular fund?

But, sir, I come down even to this very tribunal before which Senator Corwin agreed to appear as counsel. He was not the only member of Congress who appeared or agreed to appear there as counsel. And if there was anything improper in his connection with it, was it not so with other members of Congress? Mark you, I do not allude to these facts by way of casting imputations upon any of the gentlemen whom I shall name, but I do not intend, sitting here in this Hall, to permit a false impression to go before this country, or that Mr. Corwin, who is a distinguished lawyer, shall be made a scape-goat of by any gentleman upon this floor. Mark you, that the whole charge sustained is, that Mr. Corwin, while a Senator, was employed by Dr. Gardiner to represent his claim as one amongst other lawyers before the Board of Commissioners. For the testimony is conclusive that, perhaps, knowing the statute of 1789, which I have read, if from no other consideration, he disconnected himself from that relation before he assumed the position of Secretary of the Treasury.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee. I wish to ask the gentleman from Missouri this question: Did you ever receive any compensation for your action before this Commission?

Mr. PHELPS. I did not appear before that Board at all, nor did I receive any compensation for filing the memorial.

Mr. HOWARD. As the gentleman from Georgia has mentioned my name in this connection, I desire to state that two constituent s of mine sent cases to me which I filed before the Board. I presented them, however, without having exacted or received any compensation.

Mr. STEPHENS. Then I understand the gentleman from Texas did appear before the Board, but received no compensation for it.

Mr. HOWARD. I will state that I received petitions and papers made out, some of which I corrected, and one petition I redrafted, signed them The witnesses are unimpeached, and they swear as counsel, and presented them before the Board, but I never received any compensation nor charged any. I have never charged or received any pay for business to which I here attend to before the Departments.

While I am up, however, I will state that I do not myself consider an appearance before such a board as anything improper in itself. I agreed to this report, however, because I think it is better for the representatives and the country that members of Congress should not appear before such commissions, and not because I considered such an appearance as anything improper in itself. I shall take occasion to state my reasons for this opinion before the debate closes.

Mr. STEPHENS. What I was informed, then, is true, that these gentlemen did act as counsel before this Board. Mr. PHELPS did not appear before the Board in person, because it was not necessary; but as the papers presented by them were for constituents, they did not charge or receive any compensation for their services. On that point, as I stated, I was not informed as to either or any of the gentlemen named by me.

Mr. PHELPS. I did not appear before the Board at all. I merely handed in the papers.

Mr. STEPHENS. The gentleman did not appear, because it was not necessary. I presume there is no question that neither of these gentlemen received any compensation for their services. But the gentleman from Texas very correctly states, in my opinion, that it was nothing unusual or improper in members of Congress in appearing before such a board as counsel for compensation.

But the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. OLDS] says that the transfer of his interest was all a farce. Well, if so, the issue is between him and his committee. They do not report that it was a farce. that it was an unconditional transfer of all his interest in the claim. I am bound, therefore, so to consider it. Well, then, sir, was Mr. Corwin the only distinguished Senator who appeared as counsel before that Commission? I have not seen the docket, but I speak from information which has been communicated to me, and which I have no doubt is correct. I am informed that the honorable Senator from Missouri [Colonel BENTON] appeared in a case there. I am informed that the honorable Senator from Louisiana [Mr. SOULE] appeared in a case there. I believe that the honorable Daniel Webster appeared as counsel there in two cases. The honorable Mr. BRIGHT, & Senator from Indiana, appeared there also in four cases, as I am informed. Whether those gentlemen appeared for fee or reward, I do not know. I come now to this House; and mark me again, that I do not intend to cast any imputation upon any gentleman, because I do not consider myself that there was any wrong in it. There was no law against it, and it had been the custom of the country from the beginning for men holding such positions to act in such capacity. But I am informed that the honorable Mr. HoOWARD, of Texas, appeared before that Commission in behalf of some claimants. The honorable Mr. EWING, of Tennessee, who was then, but not now, a member of this House, appeared there as counsel, or rep-bers resented some party, as I am told. The honorable Mr. PHELPS, of this House, did the same thing.

Mr. STANTON, of Tennessee. Will the gentleman allow me to make a statement? Mr. STEPHENS. Be brief.

HO. OF REPS.

constituents and others, a thousand times, and never received a cent for my services, and never would receive a cent, although money has been repeatedly offered me.

Mr. STEPHENS. It seems, then, that the two gentlemen, Mr. HOWARD and Mr. PHelps, happened to have the papers of constituents, in consideration of which, they did not charge them for their services; but if the papers had been presented by others, according to the statement of the gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. STANTON,] and of the gentleman from Texas, [Mr. HowARD,] they would have considered it nothing improper to have appeared before that Commission, any more than to have appeared before the Supreme Court as counsel.

Now, my point was, to show from the whole legislative history of the country, that such a connection has never been deemed improper, that there is no legislation against it. This I think *I have established. The only Department of the Government in relation to which such a connection is prohibited by law, is that of the Treasury. That is the only Department in which public officers are prohibited from holding such a relationship. In the War Department there is no law against either the head of it or any subordinate being interested in a claim, or prosecuting a claim pending before the Treasury. In the State Department there is no such prohibition, or in any other Department. Here, and in this connection, I beg to call the attention of the House to the investigation which was had in 1837, before the memorable committee of Mr. Wise. You recollect, perhaps, that amongst other charges of impropriety preferred by Mr. Wise, was, that the heads of some of the Departments were speculating in the public lands, and with having interest in, and with prosecuting claims against the Government. The position of General Jackson, and of the party then in power, of which he was emphatically the head, was, that there was no law against it, and that if the head of any of the Departments, except the Treasury, or any of the officers of the Government, had a claim against the Government, or was disposed to invest his money in speculating in the public lands, that it was no well-grounded charge against the integrity of such officer. I have the report of that committee before me, with the remarks of Mr. Wise upon it. These papers, I think, fully sustain this position.

The Secretary of State was charged at that time with being largely interested in a land company in the State of Alabama. Witnesses were put upon the stand and questioned as to that fact. The question was so modified and restricted as to make the witness answer whether the Secretary of State had been interested in any land speculations "contrary to law." There was no law against it, and the question was not permitted to be propounded touching the matter without this modification. The inference was clear that he was, or if he was, that it was his legal right to be so interested.

Well, sir, with this distinct allegation as to the Secretary of State, what said General Jackson to this committee? "If you are able to point to any 'case where there is the slightest reason to suspect 'corruption or abuse of trust, no obstacle which I can remove shall be interposed to prevent the 'fullest scrutiny by all legal means. This he said to Mr. Wise. He had specified the speculations of the Secretary of State in public lands. But that was no case of "corruption and abuse," in the opinion of General Jackson, because it was not against any law.

General Jackson held that there was no corruption in the charge, if true, because there was no law against it: and his friends in this House on the committee would not allow the question to be put.

And I say, sir, you must first define crime before you go hunting criminals. You must first proclaim by law what is wrong, and what you intend to hold up to public odium, before you can hold Mr. Corwin, or Mr. Anybody else, up as a public malefactor for breaking your law. Your must first be made and published. Where there is no law, there is no transgression. Therefore you cannot rightfully charge the Secretary of the Treasury, as a Senator of the United States, with being "improperly" employed as counsel before the Board of Mexican Commissioners,