Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

32D CONG....3D SESS.

ing the custom-houses to keep within the amount if they can, for they will have a hard fight to get any more dollars out of the Treasury in that way. But this question is now up, and the action of the Senate is to be had, and I do believe that the precise inference will be drawn which the Senator from Illinois has suggested, if the amendment is rejected, and my friend from North Carolina who has been in the habit of triumphing over us, will triumph in the same way again, and everybody will get the money hereafter, who has been accustomed to get it, and it will go even to the printers and printers' clerks. I hope my friend from North Carolina will yield to me in this small matter, and cease to battle with me. I have given up to him once, and I now call on him to give way and vote for the proviso.

Mr. BADGER. Nothing would gratify me more than to have an opportunity of yielding to my friend, but he must remember that this is not the proper place, in propria loco; things must be done in the right place. Now, he will recollect that he made his proposition, and at my appeal he kindly and generously withdrew it. His own heart, to which he then yielded, suggested to him that the proposition was a wrong one; but unfortunately he has allowed the hard-hearted reasoning of the Senator from Ohio, supported by the unfeeling argumentation of the Senator from Illinois, to induce him to resist the impulses of his heart, and to resort to the stringent operation of another influence. Now, Mr. President, such being the case, I cannot yield to him, because I should be doing my friend wrong. It would aid him in displacing himself from the elevated position which he just now occupied. [Laughter.] The argument of my friend refers to the cases of limitations in regard to custom-houses. Whenever it is necessary to make an increase of the appropriation is it refused? Never; and it never ought to be, for if the custom-house ought to be built, and the sum first appropriated turns out to be inadequate, how absurd it is to say that we will not appropriate the money to complete it; that we will give no more because we said we would give no more. So here my friend must be aware that if the Committee on Retrenchment report a system upon this subject, and it should be adopted, the extra compensation will be done away with; but if it should not be adopted, he knows that the Senate will order the extra compensation, so that the amendment is useless. I beg him to fall back upon the position of generous noble-heartedness which he occupied a little while ago.

Mr. DODGE, of Iowa. I will say to the Senator that it was my judgment which was influenced to withdrew the amendment and not my heart. 1 withdrew it because I had a regard for the business of the Senate, and did not wish at the eleventh hour of the session to consume time by going into these matters. But, sir, I am satisfied that good will grow out of the adoption of the amendment of the Senator from Ohio, notwithstanding the argument of my friend from North Carolina. I do consider that whatever Committee on Retrenchment is formed at the next session, it will regard the adoption of the proviso as an instruction. If it is voted down, the committee will just go on as it did at the last session, and precisely.the same scenes will be enacted at the close of the session. It is not the first instance in which my friend from North Carolina has had a triumph over me. all the little matters of books, constitutions, &c., he has triumphed over me. He has almost always triumphed over me by appeals, if not by votes. I certainly do not blame him.

In

Mr. BADGER. I never had a triumph over my friend except in contests of generosity. In a contest for votes, he has obtained it.

Mr. DODGE, of Iowa. But I will not prolong this controversy further. I hope that the amendment of the Senator from Ohio will be agreed to. Mr. BRIGHT. I think the Senator from Ohio is right in offering his amendment, and I think his reasoning in support of it has not been controverted by the Senator from North Carolina. The system of extra compensation was considered a very trivial matter at its inception, but like every other iniquitous system it has grown, and though the Senator from North Carolina claims that it is expiring, it has certainly been longer dying than any other measure which I have ever

Special Session-Extra Compensation.

seen before this body. I have studiously resisted the payment at every session since I have been a member of the body. The system commenced in the first place by giving to the clerks $100 each, I believe, and to the other officers of the body $50. It has grown to such an enormous extent that we now appropriate over $30,000 per annum for the object. At the first session of the last Congress we appropriated, as has been said by the Senator from Pennsylvania, over $28,000; the last session the amount was over $30,000. Yes, sir, to an officer of this body whose salary is $3,000 we add $500 extra; to an officer whose salary is $1,800 we add $250 extra; to an officer-the Sergeant-atArms-whose salary is $1,500 we add $500 extra, to clerks whose salaries are $1,500 we add $250, to employees who draw from three to four dollars per day we add $250, at a short as well as a long session; swelling the appropriation to the enormous sum of over $30,000.

Whenever it has been resisted heretofore, we have been met by just such an argument as that used by the Senator from North Carolina to-day, that the employees expected it; that they had lived with reference to it; that it would interfere greatly with their private engagements if they did not get it, and therefore we were bound to vote for it. We voted it at the last session, and we are asked this morning to add three to the list. I thought we had gone far enough when, at the close of the last session, we added the gate-keeper; yes, sir, the gate-keeper in the public grounds, remote from the Capitol. I did not object to that, believing that an objection would be useless, as I uniformly failed in objecting to the system. But we have come to a point now when the system can be checked. We can, by the amendment offered by the Senator from Ohio, give notice to our employees-worthy persons all of them, qualified for their places, I admit; I mean nothing against any of them when I say, that if they are not satisfied with their regular salaries, there are plenty of persons throughout this Confederacy, who would be glad to take their places. If we give the notice, it will be no argument hereafter, in support of the extra compensation that our officers have been living with reference to it. I hope that the vote on the amendment will be regarded as a test vote as to whether we intend to continue the system or stop it, and with that view, I ask for the yeas and nays on it, so that the notice may appear on the record.

Mr. BAYARD. In the special session of 1851, when I first took a seat in this body, I recollect that a resolution was offered to supply an omission which had occurred in not passing the customary resolution at the preceding session in reference to the extra compensation. At that time I was very much struck with the force of the argument used by the Senator from Indiana in opposition to the allowance. Independent of that argument, I could never have consented to the introduction of such a system. But what weighed with me in reply to that argument, was the language of a distinguished Senator using the very style of argument alluded to by the Senator from Illinois. It induced me to vote in favor of the resolution, with the determination in my mind that at no subsequent session would I give such a vote. I will read the remarks made by the Senator from North Carolina in reference to the argument of the Senator from Indiana, in order to show the necessity of the amendment now proposed by the Senator from Ohio. Unless we adopt that amendment, we shall have the same appeal made at another session which was made then. The Senator from North Carolina said:

"I think the honorable Senator from Indiana is entitled to all praise and commendation for the sentiments expressed on this subject, taking the open, public, and manly ground which he has taken in respect to it. I am glad to hear him say that he intends at the next session of Congress to propose a bill for the purpose of the reorganization of the system. I assure him that I for one will, to the utmost of my power, cheerfully cooperate with him in establishing such a system as shall make it unnecessary for the Senate to vote any extra compensation. But no question as to what we shall do at the next session is now before us. The question now is, whether we shall make the usual extra allowance to our officers, or suddenly, without notice, without preconcert or any new arrangement, cut them off, and leave them without that which, from our past conduct, they had a just and fair right to expect?"

SENATE.

ate, and the impropriety, without notice, of depriving the officers of the compensation to which from our previous action they might look, which induced me at that session to vote for the compensation. The same argument will be made hereaf ter, unless the amendment of the Senator from Ohio prevails. If it does prevail, no officer can reasonably expect that the extra allowance will be made. Being myself entirely opposed to the system, on the ground that it must inevitably lead to gross corruption and abuse, and might be extended to all the officers of the Government with as much reason as to the officers of the Senate, although it would require in one case, the action of both Houses, and in the other only the action of the Senate, I will vote against the resolution, unless the proviso is adopted.

Mr. BADGER. The introductory remark in what the Senator from Delaware has done me the honor to read, should be expounded by a certain figure in rhetoric by which that is intended which is not expressed, in order to show the meaning which I had in view in what I said at that time. But so far I was entirely in earnest in that case. Though believing in the propriety of the original system, yet it is the subject of so much unnecessary difficulty in the Chamber and so much misconception, that I am ready to yield and vote for the system which may be matured to render it

unnecessary.

Mr. BAYARD. I read those remarks merely for the purpose of showing that the same argument might be made at a future session, if we do not give the notice now. It was an argument that weighed with me, coming with the force with which it was stated, the first session at which I took a seat in this body. By the adoption of the amendment I think you preclude the possibility of using such an argument at another session.

Mr. BADGER. If the Committee on Retrenchment report a system which will do away with the extra compensation, no one will vote for the allowance; but if it does not, I assure the honorable Senator I will move the usual resolution, and the Senate will adopt it.

Mr. BAYARD. I think not.

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the amendment of the Senator from North Carolina to the amendment.

Mr. BAYARD. I will merely remark that the object of the amendment to the amendment is to destroy the original amendment, and those who are in favor of the original amendment will vote against the proposition of the Senator from North Carolina.

Mr. CHASE. As the object of the amendment to the amendment is clearly seen, we might as well take a test vote on it, and I therefore ask for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered; and being taken, resulted-yeas 4, nays 30; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Badger, Borland, Cooper, and Morton

-4.

NAYS-Messrs. Adams, Atchison, Atherton, Bayard, Benjamin, Bright, Brodhead, Butler, Chase, Dodge of Wisconsin, Dodge of Iowa, Douglas, Evans, Fitzpatrick, Hamlin, Houston, Hunter, James, Jones of Iowa, Mallory, Mason, Norris, Sebastian, Seward, Smith, Soulé, Stuart, Sumner, Thompson of Kentucky, and Weller-30.

So the amendment to the amendment was rejected.

The question recurring on the amendment, Mr. BRIGHT called for the yeas and nays, and they were ordered; and being taken resulted-yeas 34, nays 3; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Adams, Atchison, Atherton, Bayard, Benjamin, Bright, Brodhead, Chase, Dodge of Wisconsin, Dodge of Iowa, Douglas, Evans, Everett, Fish, Fitzpatrick, Hamlin, Houston, Hunter, James, Jones of Iowa, Mallory, Mason, Morton, Norris, Sebastian, Seward, Shields, Smith, Soulé, Stuart, Sumner, Thompson of Kentucky, Toucey,

and Weller-34.

NAYS-Messrs. Badger, Borland, and Cooper-3.

So it was agreed to; and the question recurring on the resolution as amended, it was agreed to.

PRINTING OF A MAP.

Mr. BORLAND. The Committee on Printing, to which was referred the question of printing a map indicating the proposed course of steam navigation between San Francisco and Shanghai, to accompany a bill of the Senator from California, It was the force and strength of that argument,|| [Mr. Gwin,] for the establishment of a line of applying to the precedents and usages of the Sen-mail steamers, have directed me to report in favor

32D CONG....3d Sess.

Special Session-Committee to Procure Evidence.

of printing the same, and also in favor of printing one thousand extra copies.

Mr. SEWARD. I move to amend the report by striking out "one thousand" and inserting "one thousand five hundred."

The motion was agreed to; and the report of the committee, as amended, was concurred in.

REPORT ON THE MEXICAN BOUNDARY. Mr. BORLAND. The same committee, to which was referred the report of the Secretary of the Interior, communicating, in further compliance with a resolution of the Senate, certain papers in relation to the Mexican boundary commission, has directed me to report it back; and as the two thousand additional copies of the first part of the report of Mr. Bartlett, the commissioner to run the boundary line, of which this is the completion, have been ordered to be printed, the committee report in favor of printing two thousand additional copies of the completion of it.

The report was concurred in.

PAPERS WITHDRAWN.

On motion by Mr. MALLORY, it was Ordered, That the heirs of Joseph H. Waring be permitted to withdraw their papers from the files of the Senate. REPORT OF TOPOGRAPHICAL DEPARTMENT.

M. HAMLIN. On the 19th of April, 1852, there was transmitted to the Senate a report of the Topographical Department, relating to the beacons and light-houses on the new south shoals of Nantucket. Owing to the state of the public printing it was not ordered to be printed. I move that it be printed for the use of the Senate.

The motion was agreed to.

REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON FRAUDs. On motion by Mr. HOUSTON, it was Ordered, That fourteen hundred additional copies of the report made yesterday by the Committee on Frauds, &c., be printed for the use of the Senate.

LATE SERGEANT-AT-ARMS.

On motion by Mr. SHIELDS, the Senate proceeded to consider the following resolution, submitted by him on Thursday last:

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

Mr. PETTIT. Mr. President, I cannot well imagine how a Senator who has just voted for the amendment offered by the Senator from Ohio to another resolution, can propose such a resolution as this. What do you propose to do, sir? You are here undertaking not to pay an officer, or one who is to render service of any kind to the Senate, but to pay a person whom you have discharged from service. There can be no color of any claim for this compensation. You might as well establish a rule that after you had discharged all your officers you would continue to pay them. I would like to know if there is any reason for it. You can hold your officers as long as you please, and pay them; but after they are discharged, I cannot see why you should pay them.

Mr. SHIELDS. As the Senator from Indiana has charged me with inconsistency, I must say to him that I am not inconsistent in offering this resolution, although I did vote for the proviso of the Senator from Ohio. His proviso was against giving extra pay to officers of the Senate. Everybody knows that Mr. Beale is not an officer of the Senate, so that there is no inconsistency.

Mr. MASON. It is manifest that this resolution will lead to debate, and I therefore move to lay it on the table for the purpose of proceeding to the consideration of Executive business. The motion was agreed to; there being on a division-ayes 17, noes 16.

EXECUTIVE SESSION.

On motion by Mr. MASON, the Senate proceeded to the consideration of Executive business; and after some time spent therein, the doors were reopened,

And the Senate adjourned.

THURSDAY, March 24, 1853.

Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. C. M. BUTLER. The Senate proceeded to consider the following resolution submitted by Mr. WALKER, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, on the 21st instant:

Resolved, That the Committee on Indian Affairs be, and

they are hereby, authorized to delegate one of their number to proceed, during the ensuing recess of Congress, to take testimony in the matter now on reference to said committee, touching certain frauds alleged to have been committed by Alexander Ramsay and others, in making payment of moneys to certain bands of the Sioux Indians; and that the member of said committee so to be delegated have power 10 proceed to such points as may be necessary, and to send for persons and papers, and swear witnesses, and take their testimony, and certify the same with other proofs to said committee for their report thereon at the next session of Congress.

Mr. HUNTER. I think that that is a very objectionable resolution. I think it a very bad practice to have committees of the Senate sitting in the recess. I believe that is not a fair and proper mode of investigating any question; still worse would it be for a committee to delegate its power to one single individual. It is a power which ought not to be exercised by any single member of Congress. It seems to me that the inquiry proposed by the resolution belongs to the Executive. We shall soon have a new Governor of the Territory, I presume, who will be ex officio Superintendent of Indian Affairs, and to him or to some special commissioner to be appointed by the Executive, would most properly be delegated such a duty as this. Are we to send our members, or the members of the House of Representatives, about the country as commissioners to take testimony? Surely there could be no practice more dangerous. I hope the Senate will not agree to it.

SENATE.

self still more with that Department; but the Senator has no Indians in his State, and he has no occasion to hear their clamorings, as I have. He does not know how the matter affects the local community. He can ill appreciate that there are thousands of Indians on the frontier of Minnesota, and among the pioneer settlements there, ready to do violence to protect their rights unless they see the Government moving with some prospect, and some hope to them, that they are to have their matters investigated. Is there any peculiarity in confiding to an individual the power of a dedimus protestatem to take testimony? Has not the gentleman, in courts of justice, frequently sued out these powers, and sent them to single individuals who could swear witnesses and return the testimony Icertified to the court? That is all that is proposed by the resolution. It is only proposed that a single member of the Committee on Indian Affairs shall be authorized to go on and complete the taking of the testimony during the recess, not to make a report, but to certify that testimony to the committee at the next session, so that they may have it under examination and report it, together with their report, to the Senate. It is alleged in a letter which accompanies the charges that the individual has had to exercise his personal influence to keep the Indians, who have arms in their hands, from doing personal violence to the inhabitants. I hope violence will not result. For one, I am willing to lend myself to the duty of trying, if possible, to prevent it. I cannot see that there is any enormity in the proposition contained in the resolution. If it be that a commissioner is to be sent out, as the Senator proposes, be it so; but my candid opinion is that it will cost vastly more than what the committee propose will cost. A member of the committee can take the testimony and bring it here, and the Committee on Indian Affairs can make their report upon it. I cannot see, situated as we are, that we should not be presumed to feel a deeper interest in the matter than the Senator from Virginia; and I cannot well appreciate, unless the design of his opposition is personal, why it is thrown with so much strenuousness and violence against the matter. I am one of those who have long, for the period of my life, upon the frontiers. I have been much in contact with the Indians. I know a great deal of their character. I know the necessity of keeping something in motion to satisfy them that the Government intends to give a respectful consideration to their rights, and that is all that is proposed here.

Mr. WALKER. I am aware that the opposition to, or the advocacy of, any matter which may be proposed in the Senate by the Senator from Virginia, comes with a great deal more force than anything which I, and perhaps the Committee on Indian Affairs, can say; but that there is anything so peculiar in this matter I am not able to perceive. The subject has been referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs. They have proceeded to a considerable extent in taking testimony. They find in that investigation that, with the witnesses which they have examined here, they can proceed but a short way in the inquiry. They have proceeded far enough, however, to see that this is an important matter, and that it ought to be investigated, and that the Senate ought to be fully informed about it. It is a matter which has been brought before the Senate upon memorial-lived upon formal charges which I hold in my hand.

nesota.

Mr. SEWARD. Who are they made by? Mr. WALKER. By persons residing in MinOne of them is a Mr. Robinson, and another is a Mr. Sweetser. There are various depositions which the committee think it important to make.

Mr. SEWARD. The Senator will excuse me for asking him to state the substance of the charges.

Mr. WALKER. An appropriation of $590,000 was made for the Sioux Indians. The substance of the charges is, that Governor Ramsay, who was the custodier of the money, got the currency of the United States exchanged for the paper of certain banks of the State of New York, upon which he made a large percentage; that he took the money to Minnesota; that he there employed a third person as agent to make the payment; that in making that payment the agent of the Government imposed upon the Indians the necessity of allowing a large percentage, alleged to be fifteen per cent., upon the money paid, before it could pass into the hands of the Indians; that the money that was set apart to be paid to the half-breed Indians was arbitrarily paid, and only to a certain portion, and withheld from the rest. The committee have proceeded, to a certain extent, to investigate the charges. They have arrived at a point which would show that there is a great deal of importance in it; but they can proceed no further for the reason that some members of the Legislature of Minnesota, which has lately been in session, and persons who reside there as missionaries and as citizens have not been here, and could not be got here in time to give us their evidence; but they can be sworn there, and their testimony taken.

I am aware, as I commenced by saying, that the Senator from Virginia occupies an important position here. He is chairman of the Committee on Finance, which connects itself peculiarly with the Executive Department; and Virginia also has the head of another committee which connects it

Mr. BRODHEAD. I have heard a great deal about these charges against Governor Ramsay, and I think it very proper that I should say a word or two with regard to him.

Mr. WALKER. Will the Senator allow me to say that in what I have said I did not intend to intimate anything against Governor Ramsay. I have only stated that charges have been made, and intimated the importance of having them inquired into, by taking testimony.

Mr. BRODHEAD. I have heard of these charges, and it is proper that I should say that I have had an acquaintance of several years with Governor Ramsay. I have served with him for four years in the House of Representatives. I also served in the Legislature of the State of Pennsylvania while he was a clerk of the House. I think therefore that it is due from me to say, that while I served with him he maintained a good character for integrity. I say nothing about his political views, for I differed with him on that subject. I think it is proper that these charges should be investigated. It is due to Governor Ramsay, and I confess I cannot see any more proper mode of making the investigation than that proposed by the Committee on Indian Affairs. I think it would be quite as economical as any mode that can be pursued. I think the investigation is important, and I do not think it would be objected to by those making the charges, or by those against whom they are made I understand that both sides are demanding an investigation, though I do not know what tribunal either party desires. I have had no communication either with the persons making the charges or the accused.

I can add, further, that I did not vote for the treaties under which the payments were made; it is unnecessary for me to state the reasons. But I

32D CONG....3D SESS.

Special Session-Committee to Procure Evidence.

think it highly proper that the charges should be investigated. I am willing to leave the matter in the hands of any member of the Committee on Indian Affairs; and I hope the facts may be brought out, and the guilty persons punished, whoever they may be. Besides, this is a matter which is pending before this body. We must either dismiss it altogether, or proceed with the investigation. We cannot proceed, in my opinion, in any better mode than that proposed by the Senator from Wisconsin.

It is an immense power to be lodged in the hands of a committee, and still more in the hands of a single individual. When the committees of the Senate, or of the other House, sit making an in vestigation while we are in session, they sit in some measure under the correction of the House. If the investigation takes an improper direction, and the persons who are sworn to give evidence before them complain, there are means before the House of inquiring into their conduct, or giving some direction to it under the direction of the House itself; but when it is done by committees without any responsibility to the House, they have the whole power in their own hands, and it is an improper power. It seems to me that when we leave this place our legislative powers are gone, and that if inquiries are to be made, if commissioners are to be appointed to take testimony, they ought to be appointed by the Executive; and more especially does it seem to be proper in this case to leave it to the Governor of the Territory, who will be ex officio Superintendent of Indian Affairs. I have no personal objection to the appointment of any Senator who might be selected by the Comon Indian Affairs; nor do I object to an vestigation. I think there ought to be an examination; but I believe that we shall as certainly have one without the resolution as with it; and if we do not pass it, we shall have one appointed from the proper quarter-the Executive. I oppose the resolution because I regard it as a dangerous precedent. I see the practice to which it may lead hereafter in the appointing not merely of committees to sit during the recess, but of single Senators to act as commissioners to take testimony upon public matters in important cases.

Mr. SEWARD. I know Governor Ramsay somewhat well. I cannot believe that the charges made against him are true. If I knew him less perfectly than I do, I should still hold myself bound to disbelieve them, until they were proved. But I quite concur with the suggestions of the two Senators who have last spoken. After the statement made by the Senator from Wisconsin, I do not know how the Senate can go by giving the committee power to send one of their number during the recess for the object proposed. The Senate is a part of the treaty-making power, together with the Executive, and has to take a part of the responsibility with regard to the care and guardian-mittee ship over the Indian tribes. If these charges are all false, it is yet established in our history that there have been frauds practiced by Government agents upon the Indians, not surpassed in magnitude and in turpitude by these which are alleged in this case. I remember a treaty which was made with the Seneca Indians for the surrender of their reservation in the State of New York, which agitated the State and the nation for many years, and which was frequently under discussion in the Senate, for the purpose of deciding whether the treaty should not be abrogated on account of the frauds committed under it. It is due to the agents of the Government on all occasions, that when any responsible party shall submit charges against them, they shall have a full investigation. And it is not only necessary that they should have a full investigation, but a prompt one; for if not done promptly it will not be fully done.

If we suspend this investigation till the lapse of the recess of Congress, it is easy to see that it will go over altogether. The delay will amount to a postponement of the investigation of the charges until the subject becomes stale and obsolete. If it is done, and done promptly, there is no other way to do it but through the agency of this committee, and I do not see how the committee could exercise more discretion, more prudence, and more regard to economy than in the manner proposed by them. I trust one of their number will be sent to take the testimony upon which their report must be made at the next session of Congress. If it were any other case, I would not be so strenuous; but where the Indians are concerned, and where their abstract rights are involved, the case is a strong one. And it is much more so, because on the reputation of our good faith among the Indian tribes, we depend for peace and tranquillity upon our border settlements. I shall therefore very cheerfully vote for the resolution.

Mr. HUNTER. The Senators are arguing as if I objected to an investigation. The fact is quite the contrary. I believe that an investigation ought to be made, and that one will be made whether we pass the resolution or not. It is to the mode of investigation which is proposed in the resolution that I object. I think it is a matter for Executive inquiry, and not for a single Senator to conduct during the recess of the Senate. Nor do I know why it is that the Senator from Wisconsin should suppose that I have any personal reason for objecting to it. I have advanced none but public considerations, and public considerations, it seems to me, of weight. Sir, in what capacity is this single Senator to act in the recess when we have all gone away? Is he a Senator still in session during the recess, clothed with legislative powers? How is he to be paid? Who is to decide what he is to take? Is he to have per diem and mileage, no matter where he may go making the investigation? See the difficulties into which we shall be led if this practice be established.

But, again, this method of taking testimony in regard to a disputed question, whether it be conducted by a single individual or by a committee of the Senate sitting in the recess of Congress, it seems to me is not the fairest mode of proceeding.

[ocr errors]

SENATE.

that whoever is sent, will go with honest intentions to get the facts on both sides. If it becomes necessary for him to put questions to elicit the facts upon the charges, he is to do so; but it will not be competent for him to condemn or acquit anybody; he is only to report to the committee for its action, and by them report to the Senate, for the Senate's action in its legislative capacity. That is what is meant; and if the Senate is disposed to stigmatize the members of the Indian Committee as being incompetent to do what is often done by commissioners under a dedimus protestatum, let it say so.

Mr. HUNTER. Does the Senator charge me with stigmatizing the Committee on Indian Affairs in that manner? I do not object to that committee particularly; I object to such a power being given to any committee or individual.

Mr. WALKER. I make no charges. I speak warmly, but it is my nature-I cannot help it. I do not wish to be unkind. I wish every Senator of whom I speak, so to understand it, for sometimes when I am actuated by the kindest feelings, I may appear to speak too warmly, and even angrily. I do not mean to be understood as imin-plying any unkind feeling to the Senator.

Mr. WALKER. I cannot appreciate the force of what the Senator from Virginia says. The charges have been made to the Senate of the United States. You have imposed the duty on your committee of proceeding in the investigation of them. They have reached a point from which it would be unsatisfactory to both sides to decide upon them; for nobody is making the demand more strenuously for an examination than Governor Ramsay. He demands it. He says that he is innocent in the matter. We know nothing to the contrary. On the other side it is alleged that he is guilty. We have proceeded, as I before remarked, to a certain point in the investigation,

and we cannot go further without the passage of the resolution. It is not that we are disposed to take any of the duties of the Executive on our hands, but it is that the committee may be enabled to discharge their duty to the Senate and to the parties, both of which are demanding that an investigation may be had. I would prefer that the committee should be continued to make the investigation, but I know what objections have been raised here to such propositions, on the score of expense. It was therefore thought by the committee best to ask the Senate to permit them to delegate one of their members, not to report on the subject, not to investigate it, but to go as it were and discharge the mechanical duty of taking down the words of the witnesses from their own lips, and then certify that the testimony taken down was properly taken.

Mr. HUNTER. Who will ask the questions? Who will conduct the examination? The commissioner?

Mr. WALKER. I suppose there will be written interrogatories in regard to the charges under consideration.

Mr. HUNTER. Is that a mechanical duty? Mr. WALKER. Clearly. There will be interrogatories written by the man who will perform the manual duty, and the answers will be returned to the Senate.

Mr. HUNTER. Does the Senator mean that there are certain written interrogatories prepared by the committee?

Mr. WALKER. There have not been any directed.

Mr. HUNTER. Then the commissioner is to ask what questions he chooses.

Mr. WALKER. Suppose that is the case; I suppose if a man goes under the direction of the committee, he will go with honest intentions to get the facts of the matter, and if it is not so presumed let the Senate vote the resolution down, and say it will not trust one of its members. I presume

But upon the score of expense, it would be greater to send the entire committee to attend to the duty, although I would much prefer it. If it is desirable that two, three, four, or the whole committee be authorized to conduct the investigation, let it be so. But the committee, on considerations of economy, thought it would meet the views of the Senate more to ask that one of its members, as a kind of commissioner, should be delegated to take the testimony, to have it ready at the next session, so as not to draw the members of the Legislature of Minnesota or the Governor of Minnesota here; not to bring them from the extreme point of Minnesota to the seat of Government, but that they may give their testimony in

Minnesota, where one individual can collect them, while they could not perhaps be collected here. All that is asked is, that their testimony may be taken in writing, to be brought here for the action of the Senate.

Mr. MALLORY. I would suggest whether if we confer the power upon a single member of the body to act as commissioner, he obtains any peculiar authority under it to compel witnesses to attend and give their testimony, and whether false swearing under such authority would be punishable as perjury or not? It is doubtful in my mind whether persons could be punished for false swearing under such circumstances. I question further whether it would not be eminently proper for us, if we confer the power on a single member to act in this manner, after the adjournment of Congress, to prescribe the mode of taking the testimony; how the oaths are to be administered; what form should be used; and whether parties interested should be competent witnesses or not; for in some States they are competent, and in others they are incompetent. It appears to me that the mere conferring of the power nakedly, in the way proposed, is not proper.

Mr. SEWARD. It seems to me, sir, that if we cannot trust a committee of this Senate with discretion to take testimony upon a question before them, we had better disband our committees and discharge them from service. If the Committee on Indian Affairs are incompetent to ascertain the rules and the practice of courts and of parliamentary bodies, in the investigation of cases, then they are fit for nothing; and we are quite as unfit as they, because we have called them to discharge this trust.

Mr. MALLORY. I would like to ask the Senator one question, and that is, as I suggested before, whether false swearing, in giving testimony before the individual who should be sent as a member of the committee, would be perjury or not? It is a question not as to whether the committee would be competent to take testimony; that is conceded; but whether you could punish an individual for false swearing in such a case.

Mr. SEWARD. I will answer the learned gentleman that I suppose perjury, under the laws of the United States, committed before any person authorized by the Senate of the United States to take testimony under oath, would be punishable. There is an act of Congress, as I understand, to that effect. It does not alter the case at all, whether

32D CONG....3D SESS.

Special Session-Committee to Procure Evidence.

there be one or several persons empowered to take Virginia, that it is a very dangerous precedent to testimony. The Senate may delegate this power have this continuing power of the committees in the to one as well as to three or five. Then we come recess of the Senate. I objected very much to back to the question suggested by the Senator other committees being appointed, for the Senate from Virginia, [Mr. HUNTER,] whether it is wiser sits long enough without them. I expect we will and whether it is better and safer to refer, or leave be in session all the year after awhile. I suppose this subject to the Executive, than to exercise the this investigation will go on. If it is to go on perpower ourselves. From the history of free insti-haps it ought to be under the Executive authority. tutions, from the history of Parliaments in England down to this day, we know that the duty of legislative inquiry into abuses in the Executive Department of the Government, has been one of the highest trusts reposed in the Legislature. It is the theory of the English Government; it is the theory of our Government.

Mr. HUNTER. I would ask the Senator if I have objected to legislative inquiry, or whether the objection has not been to continue using the power of the committee during the recess? I have admitted the propriety of legislative inquiry by the Senate.

Mr. SEWARD. I understood the Senator to say that he wished the resolution might not pass, because he anticipated an inquiry by the more appropriate authority, and that was the Executive. Mr. HUNTER. More proper during the re

cess.

Mr. SEWARD. One word on that point. We have commenced the investigation; we have assumed the responsibility. It is legitimate. We have arrived at the adjournment, and we are unable, by reason of that adjournment, to prosecute the investigation to a close. Shall we suspend it for the purpose of resuming it again at the next session of Congress? No, because there will have been a delay which will be injurious. Then must we suspend, and trust that the Executive will take up and complete the investigation which we have commenced? But the Executive has no responsibility upon the subject; he has assumed none. I do not know that the subject has been brought before him. We could not calculate that the Executive would assume the responsibility unless we request him to do it. Now, if I were to choose the functionary to whom to delegate the power, and who would prosecute this subject with the greatest care and with the highest sense of responsibility, I should prefer the Committee on Indian Affairs to the Executive. It is true there might be abuses by the committee, and so there might be by the Executive. The person whom we delegate will be responsible to us at the next session, and he will be responsible to the public. What he does could not be done in secret. The very fact that he should attempt to do it in secret would be an impeachment of himself, which would forfeit his claim to the confidence of the people in the report which must come from him. He must act openly, for there will be witnesses, and if they have good ground to complain of his management of the subject, they will come here and complain. It seems to me we are throwing unnecessary difficulties in the way of this resolution, the only effect of which difficulties will be to delay the investigaof the case, which a regard for justice requires should be made soon.

Mr. BUTLER. There has been one question suggested in this discussion upon which I wish to say a word. What is perjury? What does it depend upon Strictly, there is no such thing as knowing what perjury is by the laws of the United States, except by positive enactment. There are a good many acts upon the subject to say what is or what is not perjury. I know by express statute a committee of Congress has the right to administer an oath, but it is as a committee, in virtute officii; but when the committee is disorganized and a single member is delegated with the power, I do not believe there is any such thing in the law. I do not believe it is the contemplation of the statute, that the power can be conferred on a single person by the committee. I have no doubt that the honorable Senator from Wisconsin would perform the duty proposed by the resolution in good faith and with impartiality, but we know, Mr. President, how jealous parties are of having testimony taken with the right of examination and cross-examination. We know it is very much insisted upon by all parties; and we should guard this right of investigation by all the ordinary rules which have heretofore been observed. I say, with the honorable Senator from

I do not know whether it could prosecute such a commission as you would impose the duty upon. I am not prepared to say, but I am perfectly certain that there is no such thing in the contemplation of the statute as a committee disorganizing itself and making one of its members do the busi

ness.

Mr. COOPER. I have not looked to-day at the statute, but I remember very well, in the other House, on one occasion, that I did look at the law on the subject, and I satisfied myself that under the authority given to a committee to investigate and send for persons and papers and take testimony, that a right to appoint a commissioner to take the testimony is given. In the case to which I allude, a commissioner was appointed three several times. The late Senator from Tennessee [Mr. BELL] was chairman of the committee at first. He issued a commission to a person in Nacogdoches, Louisiana, to take testimony. Mr. Adams was afterwards chairman.

He continued

the commission. At a subsequent period, I became chairman and issued a commission under the authority of that statute. This is my recollection of the statute, and I have no doubt that under it the committee will have the power to appoint a person to take the testimony.

Mr. CHASE. I have no doubt that a committee during the sitting of the Senate can authorize its members to take testimony; but the difficulty which strikes my mind is this: The Committee on Indian Affairs is a committee for this special session. It can exist only during this session. After the adjournment of the Senate, there can be no Committee on Indian Affairs. If it cannot act itself beyond the session, it can communicate no power to anybody else to act. It seems to me that view of the subject is conclusive.

In regard to this general system, if the Senate is indisposed to go into this business of examinations through the medium of its own members sitting during the recess, now is the very time to indicate its determination to discontinue that practice. The Committee on Indian Affairs is constituted of some of the ablest and most distinguished members of the Senate; it is a committee in which the Senate reposes entire confidence, and everything they may do either in conducting the examination or delegating it would meet the entire confidence of the Senate. There can be no ground for the slightest distrust of the committee. If, then, we have a committee so intelligent, so deserving of confidence as that, it is with that very committee we should begin, for there can be no suspicion whatever of any motive of distrust.

SENATE.

assume through the Senate any part of the duties which belong to the Executive. I should greatly prefer to leave the whole subject with the President and his Commissioner of Indian Affairs; and I feel confident that they will give to all parties a fair and thorough investigation, and that at the next session, if we desire information, we can obtain it in the ordinary way from the Department.

Mr. WALKER. I wish to say a word or two with reference to the point raised by the Senator from South Carolina with regard to the examination and cross-examination of witnesses, and to state that the committee on Indian Affairs have taken that very course. They have presented interrogatories, and have had a cross-examination of witnesses in order that the facts might be elicited.

In reference to what was said by the Senator from Ohio, if I understand the organization of the committees of the Senate, which is a perpetual body, they hold their appointment until they are superseded. Certainly we shall proceed at the next session to appoint new committees; and if not then, those now appointed will continue. Such has always been my apprehension of the matter. Some gentlemen say "No."

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The rule is that the committees "shall be appointed at the commencement of each session."

Mr. WALKER. So I understand; and a committee appointed at this session exists until one is appointed at the next session. And now what is proposed by the resolution is simply to authorize one of our committees to delegate one of its members to proceed, during the time for which it is constituted, to procure testimony for the action of the body at the next session.

Mr. ADAMS. Í voted at the last session against the creation of various committees to be authorized to sit during vacation. I then doubted the propriety of such a proceeding, though I have no doubt of the power of the Senate to appoint a committee of its own body to obtain information when a proper case is presented for its consideration. I understand it to be the duty of the President of the United States to see that the laws are faithfully executed, and the duty of the legislative body to see that proper laws are passed; and if this body discovers a deficiency in the information in relation to our legislative duties, and we can obtain that information by a committee of our own body better than in any other way, I have no doubt of the propriety of appointing a committee. Then the whole question, in my mind, in reference to the proposed committee, is as to the importance of the information. Charges have been made against a public officer. He is amenable by impeachment to this body. The House of Representatives has as much interest as the Senate has in relation to the performance of his duties by that officer. The duty is devolved upon the President of the United States to see that the laws are faithfully executed. If there is any action desired to be taken by this body, I have no objection to taking the proper means to obtain information. My principal object in rising is to propose an amendment. If it is desirable—and I know it is desirable to the whole country-that correct information should be had in reference to this alleged fraud, I would suggest that a small difference in the compensation and expenses should not be looked to. Therefore I move to strike out "one" and insert "three," so as to have a com

and then whatever may be the sense of the Senate as to the propriety of appointing a committee, I have no choice in reference to it.

Now, sir, is the practice itself right? The President of the United States is charged with the executive conduct of our public affairs under the law, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate he appoints the Commissioner of Indian Affairs. That is a bureau by itself in this Government. That bureau and the President himself will undoubtedly find their attention attracted by the subject which has engaged the attention of the Committee on Indian Affairs. The law has confided this whole subject to the Presi-mittee of three appointed to take the testimony; dent and to the bureau. Shall we withdraw it from their hands? Is it wise to divide the responsibility of the Executive department of the Government? It is true, as it is said, that the Senate advises the President. That is undoubtedly correct; but we advise the President upon matters submitted to the Senate. We do not volunteer advice to the President; much less ought we, it seems to me, to originate and conduct an investigation by ourselves, or when the Senate is not in session, which belongs especially to the Executive department of the Government. Our committees look to the Executive department of the Government for advice and instruction. There are the sources of evidence in a great measure. There the evidence may be collected from the testimony of witnesses before them. It seems to me it would be indiscreet, to say the least of it, to

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. BADGer in the chair.) The Chair would suggest that the amendment should be put in a different form. The resolution is that the Committee on Indian Affairs delegate one of their number to perform the duty.

Mr. ADAMS. I move to strike all that out, and make it read, that a committee of three be appointed by the Presiding Officer to perform the duty.

Mr. HUNTER. Here are two laws in relation to the power of committees to administer oaths. They have been handed to me, and I desire to refer to them. The first is the law of May 3, 1798, which provides “that the President of the Senate, 'the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the

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

Special Session-Committee to Procure Evidence.

'chairman of the Committee of the Whole, or the 'chairman of a Select Committee of either House 'shall be empowered to administer oaths or af'firmations to witnesses in any case under their 'examination." The next is an act to extend the provisions of that act. It provides" that the 'chairman of any standing committee, either of 'the House of Representatives or of the Senate of the United States, shall be empowered to ad'minister oaths or affirmations to witnesses in any 'case under their examination, and any person 'who shall be guilty of perjury before such com'mittee, shall be liable to the pains and penalties 'prescribed for the punishment of the crime of willful and corrupt perjury." So that the power is expressly confined to the Presiding Officers of the two Houses, and the chairmen of committees.

Mr. TOUCEY. I am not satisfied to vote for this delegation of power by a committee. I am not satisfied that the delegate of the committee would have any power whatever to compel the attendance of witnesses. I am not satisfied that if the oath was administered and violated, that the party could be indicted for perjury. And if a witness were to refuse to answer an inquiry of the delegate, I do not think there would be any power to commit him for his refusal to answer. If, therefore, I were in favor of committees sitting during the recess of Congress, I should still be opposed, for the reason that I have suggested, to a committee organized in this manner.

But, sir, it is made the duty of the President of the United States to see that the laws are faithfully executed, and treaties are the supreme laws of the land. It is therefore his duty, under the Constitution, to make the inquiry, and there is a bureau of the Executive department, to which that inquiry properly belongs. I am not satisfied either that there would be any evil arising from the delay. We shall not be here until the next session of Congress to take advantage of any information which the committee may obtain. The next session will be the long one, and if this is an investigation which ought to go on, and if the Executive departments shall neglect to make the investigation, we shall then have the power in season for any action to make the inquiries, before we, in this body, or the members of the other House, could act upon any information which might be obtained by this mode of investigation which is proposed. I hope, therefore, the whole inquiry will be suspended until we meet again.

Mr. PETTIT. It seems to me that it is due alike to the Senate and to the accused, Governor Ramsay, that this investigation should go on at the earliest day. It is all true that it may go on at the next session, which will be the long session; but there will be nothing done during the first || months in the winter, and laboring in the summer will be rather an unpleasant and wearisome undertaking, besides the difficulty of dragging witnesses from Minnesota here to give their testimony, when two or three men might be sent there for the purpose of taking the testimony. If Governor Ramsay is innocent, as I trust it may turn out he is and I do not pretend to speak on that point at all-as an honorable man I ask for him that the Senate shall take the most prompt and efficient means for having the charges investigated. If he be innocent, and has been falsely charged, why continue to have him held up to the gaze of the world for a year as a villain and that of the worst kind? He is demanding the investigation. It is due to him that he should have it at our hands. Sir, there can be no difficulty in detailing one member of that committee or the whole of them for the investigation.

Mr. CHASE. The Senator from Indiana has said that Governor Ramsay has demanded an investigation. Has he addressed any communication to that effect?

Mr. PETTIT. He has not addressed any communication to me.

Mr. CHASE. Has he addressed any communication to the Senate?

Mr. PETTIT. I have not seen any. I took the word of the Senator for the statement. It seems to me that we ought to have the investigation so as to settle the question whether he is guilty or not. If he is innocent he ought to have it on his own account; and we ought to have it if he is guilty.

[ocr errors]

I know Governor Ramsay well. I formerly served with him in the other House, Whether he be guilty or not I am not prepared to say, having had no connection with this matter; but while serving with him in the other House I regarded him as an honorable man. I hope and trust it may turn out that he has remained so. But if he be an honorable man, he asks this examination, and it is due from the Senate, or any public body having the power, to make the examination promptly and speedily, that it shall be made. Why hold him up, I say, a long year, and more than a year, to public scorn, ridicule, and the denunciations of the papers all over the country, when we have the power to prepare the way for his punishment or relieve him from suspicion?

To obviate the difficulty suggested by the Sen. ator from Virginia, who believes that there is some doubt about the authority of the delegate of a committee to administer oaths, or the punishment which would follow in the event of a violation of the oaths, I will move to amend the resolution so as to make it read that a committee of three shall be appointed.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. An amend-
ment is already pending for that purpose, offered
by the Senator from Mississippi.

Mr. PETTIT. I was not aware of that. I
will say one word in reference to it. If the Sen-
ate appoint such a committee, there can be no
doubt of the authority of that committee to admin-
ister the oaths, to progress with the investigation,
to do justice to the party accused, and to do jus-
tice to the country. It is idle to talk about the
miserable paltry sum which it will cost. Suppose
you should the per
pay
diem and mileage of three
members of Congress; suppose you should pay
the mileage to Minnesota or elsewhere in the
country, wherever it shall be necessary, and the
regular per diem during this vacation, what great
sum would it be at last? Sir, is it to be weighed
in the balance at all with the administration of
public justice, with the investigation of charges of
large peculation and wrong? Is it to weigh for a
moment in the balance against the character of an
honorable man, which is put in jeopardy in this
manner? It ought not for one moment. I hope,
to put the question beyond any doubt as to the
authority to administer the oaths, and their bind-
ing effect, that a committee of three will be raised.
I believe it will be better to intrust the power to
such a committee than to one person. It is a large
power to delegate to one man, I grant. Let there
then be a committee of three appointed. I insist,
at any rate, that the investigation shall go on.
The honorable Senator from Wisconsin having
been the mover of the resolution, would, in all
probability, if the resolution as he introduced it
should pass, be detailed by the Committee on In-
dian Affairs to make the investigation; and I take
great pleasure in saying, that having known that
gentleman since our early youth, having long
since formed an acquaintance, I might well say
from boyhood, I take pleasure in saying that I do
not believe such a duty could be confided to more
faithful, efficient, or honest hands. I trust, how-
ever, the resolution will be so amended as to ap-
point a committee of three, in order that there may
be no doubt about the power.

Mr. BUTLER. If we are to go on with the
investigation proposed by the honorable Senator
from Wisconsin, and which seems to be insisted
upon by the Senator from Indiana, it does seem
to me that three Senators are the very last persons
who ought to be employed to make it, because
Governor Ramsay-about whom I know nothing
-is amenable to the Federal Government for his
acts, and he must be amenable through the ordi-
nary mode in which all public functionaries are
amenable, that is by impeachment from the House
of Representatives. And, sir, in that point of
view we are the judges; and are the judges of the
accused to send out their own committee to col-
lect testimony? That would be, in a fair contem-
plation of our duties, a paradox. I do not know
what use we could make of the information if we
had it. Could we impeach the accused? All we
could do would be to acquit him. If it became
necessary for us to decide upon his guilt, this
would be an improper mode of proceeding.
make this suggestion, therefore, that if any inform-
ation is to be acquired, it ought not to be ac-

I

SENATE.

[blocks in formation]

The motion was agreed to.

EXECUTIVE BUSINESS.

On motion by Mr. MASON, the Senate proceeded to the consideration of Executive business; and after some time spent therein, the doors were reopened.

Mr. BORLAND moved that the Senate adjourn; which was not agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT OVER.

Mr. SEWARD moved that when the Senate adjourn, it be to meet on Monday next.

Mr. HOUSTON. I hope, Mr. President, that that will not be done. I am satisfied that the effect of that would be, that when we assemble on Monday there will not be a quorum here. I shall have to ask the yeas and nays on the motion. The yeas and nays were not ordered.

Mr. HOUSTON. I will merely suggest, before the question is put, that if we adjourn over until Monday, and then find ourselves here without a quorum, we can then only adjourn from day to day, and shall consequently have to sit the remainder of the year.

Mr. MASON. If the business before the Senate is to be acted on, it is necessary that we should remain here until it is finished. We have now but a bare quorum, and many gentlemen have told me that they are obliged to leave the city. I am not one of those who will leave. Although it is a very great inconvenience to me to remain here, I submit to it, and I intend to sit here from day to day until we finish the public business.

Mr. PHELPS. Permit me to say, Mr. President, that I do not see anything to be gained by adjourning over until Monday. We are certainly not so overburdened with business that we need to sit more than two days, and I think we had better finish it this week. I agree with my friends over the way, that if we adjourn until Monday we shall never get a quorum again.

Mr. CHASE. I will remark that to-morrow is Good Friday, and I think respect enough is due to the wishes of those Senators who desire to keep that day to induce the Senate to adjourn over. I will therefore suggest to my friend from New York to agree to a compromise, and modify his motion so as to adjourn over until Saturday instead of Monday.

Mr. BADGER. It seems that we have got the Senator from Ohio in favor of a compromise at last. [Laughter.]

Mr. SEWARD. If the honorable Senator from Ohio goes for a compromise, I believe I must give up too. I accept his proposition, and will modify my motion so that when we adjourn it be to meet on Saturday, at twelve o'clock.

Mr. BORLAND. I move that the Senate now adjourn.

The question being then taken, upon a division there were-ayes 10, noes 16; so the Senate refused to adjourn.

Mr. BORLAND. Although the Senate has refused to adjourn, I think it is pretty clear that we can do no other business; for there is not a quorum present.

Mr. SEWARD. I hope the question will be put on my motion.

Mr. BORLAND. I do not believe that is in order when there is no quorum; but I will ask the yeas and nays upon it, at any rate.

The yeas and nays were not ordered.

The question being then put on the motion that when the Senate adjourn it be to meet on Saturday next, on a division there were-ayes 17, noes 9; no quorum voting.

Mr. BRIGHT then moved that the Senate adjourn; which was not agreed to.

Mr. PETTIT. I move that when the Senate adjourn it be to meet at twelve o'clock on Monday

next.

« PoprzedniaDalej »