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

Mr. BRODHEAD. I would be quite willing to pay the Intelligencer for the matter which has been published, and I think the resolution should be so modified. It had, therefore, perhaps better go over until to-morrow morning.

Mr. BORLAND. I would suggest to my friend from Pennsylvania, that the resolution had better be disposed of now. I have a very few remarks to make upon it; and I think I can satisfy him and the Senate that we ought not to pay for what has been published. There is good reason for it. There is no reason why we should pay for publishing hereafter in that paper what has taken place which has not yet been published. If the resolution goes over at all, I should like it to go over until the next session; but if it is disposed of at this session, it had better be done now. hope the resolution will not be taken up, but if it is under consideration, I will say in a few words what I have to say upon the subject. I shall make no speech.

I

Mr. GWIN. I hope the resolution will not be taken up. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Executive business.

The PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Arkansas withdraw his motion to lay the resolution upon the table?

Mr. GWIN. Is the resolution before the Senate?

The PRESIDENT. It is.

Mr. BORLAND. Then I will say what I have to say in a very few words. This is a proposition to pay the National Intelligencer for what it has published, during the last Congress, of the proceedings and debates of this body; and to pay also for publishing after this time that which it omitted to publish during the last Congress. I am opposed to both propositions, and for this reason: The National Intelligencer had a contract on the same terms as the Union, to publish the proceedings and debates of the Senate. Its editors came forward and relinquished that contract. I thought it was generally understood why that was done; and that which followed confirmed me in what I supposed was the general understanding. It was considered that it made the Intelligencer a neutral paper in politics to publish the debates of the Senate, because it had to publish Democratic as well as Whig speeches, which left but little room for editorials; and inasmuch as the Democrats were in a majority in the Senate, and perhaps more speeches were made on the Democratic than on the other side, it gave the paper rather a Democratic tendency by throwing Democratic doctrines before the country. The presidential election was coming on, and it was deemed important that the Intelligencer should be a thoroughly Whig paper. To make it so, and to avoid the publication of Democratic speeches in the debates of the Senate, it relinquished its contract; and we found that it afterwards confined itself almost exclusively to the publication of Whig speeches delivered here, which might be useful in the political canvass. Of course I had no objection to that. It was within the option of the editors to publish what they pleased for political purposes. But the proposition involved here is that we shall pay the editors of that paper seven dollars and fifty cents a column for doing that when they published at their own option a party paper, and relinquished the contract which required them to publish the speeches on both sides of the Chamber. I am disposed to be as liberal in party matters as most men; but it is really asking me, as a Democrat, to go further than propriety requires me to go, to comply with this proposition. I would have no objection to pay for the publication of Whig speeches, provided the Democratic speeches went along with them; but I am unwilling to give a party paper the privilege of selecting what speeches it chooses to publish for political effect, and recognize that as the regular proceedings and debates of this body, and pay for it at the public expense. I cannot do that.

The next proposition is-what? To pay the paper for going back and publishing now what we did during the last Congress.

Mr. SEWARD. The last Congress or the last session?

Mr. BORLAND. The last Congress as I understand, or if it is the last session, it is the same thing in principle.

Special Session-Debates in the Senate.

The PRESIDENT. It is the last Congress. Mr. BORLAND. Now I should like to know if there would be enough of public interest in the proceedings of the last Congress to lead the people to go back and read them all over again, if the newspapers should publish them subsequent to this time? It is a good policy on the part of the National Intelligencer. It threw out all these things when it wanted to occupy its columns with party matter for the purpose of affecting the presidential election. It was a very good party move; and now, when the excitement has passed away, and persons care very little about the political character and aspect of the paper, the Intelligencer, which, during the excitement that attended the presidential election, did not publish full debates, wants to publish now what nobody will read and the public do not want. Appeals have been made to me by gentlemen outside of the Chamber that the National Intelligencer cannot get along without some patronage. Very well. I like the National Intelligencer as a Whig paper; but if it cannot get along without such patronage, I am unwilling, as a Democratic Senator, to bestow it. I do not think we have any right to do it; and if we had the power, I do not think this would be the proper purpose for which, or the proper occasion upon which, to exercise it. This is my understanding of the proposition now before us; and for these reasons I shall vote against the resolution. Unless some one wishes to offer views on the other side, I move that it lie upon the table. If any gentleman wishes to say anything, I will withdraw it.

Mr. HAMLIN. I submitted the original resolution to increase the subscription for the number of the Congressional Globe and Appendix with which Senators are now furnished, upon the ground that while we expended so much money for the preparation of the debates in that form, I thought it advisable that Senators should have as many copies for distribution, or a greater number than is furnished to members of the House.

Mr. BORLAND. Will the Senator permit me to say that I concur with him fully? My remarks had no reference to his proposition.

Mr. HAMLIN. I understand. I was saying that these were the reasons which operated with me in offering the original resolution. The amendment offered by the Senator from California, I am aware, embraces other propositions than that contained in the resolution which I offered.

Mr. BORLAND. The resolution offered by the Senator in relation to the Congressional Globe and Appendix is not up for consideration.

Mr. HAMLIN. What is up? Let the resolution be read.

Mr. GWIN. I will state to the Senator that his resolution was postponed until the next session.

Mr. HAMLIN. Then I was hanging a speech in the wrong place and on the wrong subject, though I do not know but that it would apply just as well. [Laughter.] I will therefore say nothing

further.

Mr. GWIN. I have a few words to say in regard to the remarks of the Senator from Arkansas. I think he is mistaken in regard to the object of the resolution. I think that the portion of the debates which is proposed to be paid for, which were published during the last session, are the running current debates which were published daily. That portion of the debates which went extensively into the questions before the Senate, is not embraced in the resolution, if I understand it. The National Intelligencer published a very accurate daily report of the proceedings of the Senate; and I acknowledge that it is important to the country that such a report should be published in that paper. It is concise, leaving out a great deal of immaterial matter which passes here; but still I thought it useful. It is for that portion, which the resolution proposes to pay the editors. What follows is the official report as made out by the Globe and Union. That is to be published hereafter. The remarks made by the Senator to the effect that in the debates published by the Intelligencer during the last session, there were more Whig speeches than Democratic, are entirely outside of the proposition. It is now proposed that the debates which have heretofore been published in the Union and the Globe, shall be republished

SENATE.

in the Intelligencer for which it shall get so much per column. It is to publish them just as they were reported in those papers; and it is to be paid for what it had reported; that is a succinct account of the proceedings of the Senate, in which, it seems to me, there was no reference to the political discussion further than was necessary in the publication of the debates that occurred in the Senate.

Mr. BRODHEAD. Some valuable speeches were published in the Intelligencer during the last session, and published too without reference to party character. I think all the leading speeches on the important questions at the last session which were delivered on both sides of the Chamber appeared in the Intelligencer. Such is my recollection. Now, sir, in my opinion, its editors abandoned the contract, which was similar to the one under which the Union has been reporting our proceedings, because it did not pay. They had a right to do that; but in view of the fact that the succinct publication of the proceedings of the Senate has been useful,, I am willing to pay them for it. I am unwilling to go back and publish all the speeches which have been made during the last session. I do not think that it was with a view to benefit the Whig party that the Intelligencer abandoned the contract which it had with the Senate for the publication of the debates at large. I differ from my friend from Arkansas on that point. The editors distinctly stated in their communication to the Senate that they asked to be released from their contract because it did not compensate them. I am therefore quite willing to pay them for what work they have done, but I am unwilling to go back and pay them for the publication now of all the speeches that were delivered during the last Congress.

Mr. MASON. The resolution in regard to an increase of the subscription for the Congressional Globe and Appendix, has been postponed until the next session. This, as I understand, is a proposition to publish the debates in the National Intelligencer. I recollect very distinctly that when our present system of publishing the debates as the expenses of the Senate originated, great doubts were generally expressed as to the propriety of such a system. There was then a contract made with the leading paper of each great political party at the seat of Government-the Union and the Intelligencer-to publish at a stated price per column, the entire debates of the Senate as fast as they were delivered. According to my impression, the contracts were complied with by both papers. They kept up the publication of the current debates, and did lay them before their readers gen-. erally the next day after they occurred-seldom later than the day after. At the close of the short session two years ago, the editors of the National Intelligencer informed the Senate that it was too onerous for that paper to continue the contract; that it did not compensate them. They therefore relinquished it, and voluntarily disconnected themselves from the Senate as one of our official reporters. Now the proposition as I understand it, is to authorize them again to publish the debates on the same terms, and pay them for what they have already published. I would have no objection, if gentlemen desire it, to continue the publication of the current debates in the Intelligencer, but I think there is no reason in the world either for ordering the publication of what has passed, or for paying them for what they have voluntarily published. That paper is one of the oldest papers at the seat of Government, and I have every reason to believe that it enjoys a most extensive general circulation not in this country only, but abroad. It is a paper conducted with great ability and it has remained for many years in very able hands. It is, as all papers in this country must be, a party paper, although it is conducted, I am free to say, with great decorum and courtesy to the opposing party. At the same time it is conducted with an exclusive eye to the interests of its party. I feel no party hostility towards it whatever. I believe that our country will not continue to be a republic, certainly not a republic in a sound and healthy condition, unless there are two parties-parties not having a tendency to degenerate into the party in power, and the party in opposition, but two parties such as constituted the dividing parties in this country half a century ago or less-parties opposed to each other upon

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

the principles of the Government and the mode of administering it. There must be parties. No salutary influence can be exerted on the Government, unless there are parties and party organs. But I see no reason in the world for paying the National Intelligencer for what it has voluntarily published. It published it for its own purpose. It was what its readers had a right to expect, and it was necessary to sustain its own character. I would have no objection to so much of the resolution as proposes to continue the publication of the debates in that paper. What is the object of the publication? To give an opportunity to its readers throughout the country to see what is done in the Senate. We all know that the interest in the debates is lost when we go back and publish them after they have become stale. I have been a reader of the Intelligencer, I think, some thirty years, and, as I said, it has had a sedulous and exclusive eye to the interests of the party of which it is one of the organs. I cannot, however, agree with the suggestion of my friend from Arkansas, that it has been unfair or partial, at least while it was publishing the debates of the Senate for the Senate. It then published the whole of the proceedings. If it has done otherwise since, it has had a perfect right to publish what it pleased; but while it was publishing officially for the Senate, it contained speeches in extenso on both sides of the Chamber on every important topic of discussion.

Mr. BORLAND. I do not differ at all from the Senator from Virginia, about the character of the National Intelligencer as a party paper. We all know it is a very dignified one; and I believe it is one of the most candid, and has less of bitterness of feeling in it than any paper which we have. As a public journal I respect it very highly. I do not charge it with any unfairness. There was no unfairness in its publishing such speeches and documents as it thought proper to advance the interests of the Whig party. It was perfectly right in doing so. I do not object to that; nor would I have objected to continuing it as one of the reporters of the Senate while it was receiving seven dollars and fifty cents a column. I very cheerfully voted for its having the contract to that effect, and would have continued it as long as it may be the policy of the Senate to employ special papers to report its proceedings. I would not have restricted that, so far as it is considered patronage, to the papers of my own party. I would be perfectly willing that the National Intelligencer should have it; but when its editors came forward and told us that the contract did not pay, that they could no longer go on under it, and when they gave it up on the eve of a presidential canvass, and during that canvass did exercise their discretion for the benefit of their own party, and published such speeches and documents as conduced to the interests of that party, I am unwilling to pay them for such work.

It seems to me that the suggestion of my friends from Pennsylvania and Virginia proves a little too much in favor of this proposition. The editors of the Intelligencer told you that they gave the contract up because it would not pay. They thought it was a bad bargain. They could not go on with it, and yet they come forward now and ask us to enter into it again. If they lost money on the contract the year before last, why should it not make them lose money now? No, sir, the object was this: I understand the contract did not pay because the pecuniary compensation was not sufficient to compensate for the political injury that it might sustain by publishing all the debates; and it was a question between the pecuniary and the political interests of the paper. The money was not enough to induce them at a time of high party excitement to publish what they and the friends of the paper called at that time a neutral paper. They wanted a Whig paper; but the publication of Democratic speeches in it made it a neutral paper, because they neutralized the effect of the editorials and of Whig speeches. I differ from Senators who say that it has published speeches on both sides. I have read it pretty carefully, and if it published Democratic speeches I did not see them in its columns. It may as a special favor have published one or two, but that it made a practice of it, I am very sure is not the case.

Mr. President, I think our present system of

Special Session-Debates in the Senate.

reporting is wrong in itself. It might be greatly improved. In my opinion, we ought to have one official reporter whom we ought to pay more than we now pay, to enable him to organize and keep up one efficient corps of reporters; and then if we desired to have the reports published in other papers, we could pay those papers for their republication from the official paper. We have now going out to the public two sets of reports of our proceedings as official reports, which very often differ from each other. I want the thing uniform. I think we can have it better done by paying one official reporter, and having one uniform report to go out as the official record, and then we can, by paying a smaller compensation to other papers, have it distributed over the country as we think proper. I think that would be the better plan to

pursue.

SENATE.

of a contract such as we have with the Union. It proposes no contract with the publishers of the Intelligencer; but it directs our Secretary to have certain debates printed in that paper. Where are they to come from? Why, sir, they are to be collated from the Globe or the Union, and to be republished in the Intelligencer. Now, I ask if it would not be treating unfairly, both the Globe and the Union, to take the reports which they have made up and published, and transfer them to another paper, and pay that paper precisely the same for publishing, as we have paid the other two papers for reporting and publishing them. Sir, I am willing to transfer these debates to the Intelligencer for the purpose of disseminating them among the public, and placing them before the partisans of that paper, but I am unwilling to pay precisely the same sum which we pay to those who have done the reporting at length. It would be unjust to them. If we should pay the Intelligencer seven dollars and fifty cents a column for republishing the debates that have been written out by others, we should increase very much the compensation which we have paid to our other publishers. That is my view of the matter.

Mr. SEWARD. I perceive that this resolution is misapprehended in its effect and scope. It does not propose that the National Intelligencer shall go back and publish the proceedings of the last Congress, and receive compensation for it. What it does precisely propose is this: The National Intelligencer during the last Congress, reported what may be called eclectic debates on its own account. It is now proposed to pay its editors for those eclectic debates, and no more; and in regard to the last session to pay them for what they have already published, and to authorize them to pub-cline lish the residue of the debates of that session, not of the last Congress. That is the point to which I wish to direct the attention of Senators. Mr. BORLAND. If the Senator will let the resolution be read, he will see that it refers to the last Congress.

Mr. SEWARD. Let it be read. I think the honorable Senator will see that I am right. The resolution was read.

Mr. SEWARD. Very well. Now, then, the question divides itself into two parts. First, in regard to the last session. I think it cannot be alleged that there has been any political influence exercised in the selection of the eclectic debates which were published during that session, and I see no reason why we should not be willing to pay them for those debates. There have been no political debates here during the last session; nothing that has had any tendency whatever to operate in a partisan point of view upon the public mind; and if there was, the debates which have been published have certainly been fair and equal. The Intelligencer, if it should go on now and publish the residue of the debates of the last session, will give them to the public nearly as soon as they will reach the public through the Union, which I believe is not yet through its report of the last session, and certainly as soon as the public will be reached by the debates in the Congressional Globe, and sooner too. Therefore, as the Senate might perhaps agree to this resolution, while they would not be willing to go back, for the reasons expressed by the Senator from Arkansas, to authorize the publication of the eclectic debates for the first session of the last Congress, I suggest by way of compromise that we pay them for what they have printed of the last session of Congress, and authorize them to print the residue at the

same rate.

Mr. HAMLIN. I think it would be judicious to have no action on this resolution at this session, for the reason that the Senate is very thin, and an adverse action upon it might have an effect on the Senate in its subsequent action. We now have a contract with the Union, which is a party paper, and under it, all the debates of the Senate are printed and published, and consequently spread mainly before the class of the community who are partisans corresponding with that paper. I will, with great cheerfulness, vote for any scheme which shall throw our debates before another class of the community. I would have them published in the Intelligencer and send them to another class of individuals; but I think this resolution is too broad. It covers too much ground; and the Senator who drew it did not mean precisely what the resolution purports, or if he did, I shall be compelled to disagree with him in the result to which I arrive. What is the resolution? In the first place, it proposes to authorize the Secretary of the Senate to procure certain debates to be printed in the National Intelligencer. It is not in the nature

Then, in relation to the payment of what has already been published-a mere synopsis of the proceedings of the Senate-I am not willing to say that I would not pay something for them. I insomewhat to the opinion that I would; still I am not quite clear in the matter. I do not know that it extended much beyond that amount which they desired for the character of their press, and which was demanded from its subscribers. Still, for the purpose of doing equal justice to the political press on the other side, I am inclined to believe I would favor the payment of something for them. But taking the proposition as it stands now, it seems to me it is too broad, and fearing that an adverse decision now might influence the action of the Senate hereafter, I think it would be better not to act upon it at this time, when the Senate is so thin, but it should go over until the next session, when it can be presented to the Senate, fully matured, discussed, and acted upon by a full Senate. I think it more advisable to take that course; and I therefore move to postpone its further consideration until the first Monday in December

next.

Mr. BORLAND. The remark which the Senator from Maine has made as to the compensation to be paid, is very forcible. We know that the Union and Globe have to pay for their reporting four dollars and fifty cents a column, leaving but three dollars for the publication of the debates. Now, the proposition is to give the Intelligencer as much for the mere publication, as we give them for the reporting and publication.

Mr. SHIELDS. Does the Senator object to the postponement of the resolution? Mr.SEWARD. We all agree to the postpone

ment.

Mr. BORLAND. Very well; though I think it would be better to reject it.

The motion to postpone was agreed to.

EXECUTIVE SESSION.

On the motion of Mr. MASON, the Senate proceeded to the consideration of Executive business;

and after a short time the doors were reopened.

PAPERS WITHDRAWN.

On motion by Mr. GWIN, it was

Ordered, That leave be granted to withdraw the three several drafts now on the files of the Senate drawn in favor of Thomas W. Lane by G. W. Barbour, Indian agent in California, upon R. McKee, disbursing agent.

REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON FRAUDS. Mr. HOUSTON moved that ten thousand additional copies of the report of the Committee on Frauds be printed for the use of Senate.

The motion was referred to the Committee on Printing.

Mr. BORLAND subsequently reported in favor of printing the same.

The PRESIDENT. The report can be considered now only by unanimous consent.

Mr. BORLAND. I will suggest to the Chair that the rule under which the Committee on Printing acts, requires it to report at least the day after the subject is referred to it, and it has been customary very often to report such resolutions back on the same day.

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

The PRESIDENT. The resolution has been modified to read as follows:

Ordered, That the copies of Captain Ringgold's charts of the coast of California heretofore ordered to be purchased be delivered to the Secretary of the Treasury for distribution to the Navy and commercial marine navigating that coast.

The yeas and nays were taken on the adoption of the order, and it was agreed to-yeas 21, nays 17; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Borland, Brodhead, Dodge of Wisconsin, Dodge of Iowa, Everett, Fitzpatrick, Foot, Gwin, Houston, Jones of Iowa; Mallory, Pettit, Rusk, Sebastian, Seward, Shields, Soulé, Stuart, Walker, Weller, and Wright-21.

NAYS-Messrs. Atchison, Atherton, Bayard, Bright, Butler, Chase, Clayton, Douglas, Evans, Hunter, Mason, Norris, Pearce, Smith, Sumner, Thompson of Kentucky, and Toucey-17.

EXECUTIVE BUSINESS.

A message was received from the President of the United States, by SIDNEY WEBSTER, Esq., his Secretary, and on motion of Mr. GWIN, the Senate proceeded to the consideration of Executive business. After some time the doors were reopened.

VOTING BY MACHINERY.

Mr. HOUSTON submitted the following resolution:

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate be, and he hereby is, authorized and directed to contract with Henry Johnson, the inventor, for the construction in the Senate Chamber of his new mode of taking the yeas and nays: Provided, The entire cost of construction shall not exceed the sum of $1,500 to be paid out of the contingent fund of the Senate.

COMMERCIAL REGULATIONS.

Mr. HAMLIN. I submit the following resolution:

Resolved, That there be printed for the use of the Senate five thousand additional copies of the report of the Secre tary of State relating to the commercial regulations with foreign nations.

I ask the consideration of that resolution at this time. I will state very briefly what it is.

A SENATOR. Has it been reported from the Committee on Printing?

Mr. HAMLIN. It has the approbation of that committee. I had an interview with a late Secretary of State [Mr. Webster] on this subject at the last long session of Congress, the result of which was that during that session, on the 19th of July, I submitted a resolution calling upon the State Department to furnish the Senate with such information as it could, relating to the subjects named in the resolution. The report has been submitted to the Senate. It will form a little volume of about one hundred pages. It is a very valuable work, showing, as it does, the regulations of foreign commerce of almost every foreign nation. As the expense of printing it will be very little, and as the resolution meets the approbation of the Committee on Printing to which I have submitted it, I trust the Senate will adopt it. The resolution was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to.

OPEN EXECUTIVE SESSIONS.

Mr. CHASE. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the resolution which I submitted yesterday in regard to Executive sessions. The motion was agreed to. The resolution is as follows:

"Resolved, That the sessions and all proceedings of the Senate shall be public and open, except when matters com municated in confidence by the President, shall be received and considered, and in such other cases as the Senate by resolution from time to time shall specially order; and so much of the 38th, 39th, and 40th rules as may be inconsistent with this resolution is hereby rescinded."

Mr. CHASE. I suppose every Senator understands the object of this resolution. With the permission of the Senate I will so far modify its terms as to make it take effect after the present session of Congress and submit it to a vote with a very few remarks.

It changes the existing rule to this extent: The present rule requires the consideration with closed doors of treaties and nominations, and all confidential communications of the President. The proposed amendment requires that all sessions and all proceedings of the Senate shall be open and public, except in such special cases as the President or Senate from time to time shall decide to be proper for secret consideration. The proposed change would substitute for the general

Special Session-Open Executive Sessions.

rule of secrecy in respect to several classes of subjects the general rule of publicity, with such exceptions as particular exigencies shall from time to time require.

As the rules now stand all treaties are considered in secret session, and so are all nominations, and all communications marked confidential. Should the rules be altered as proposed by the resolution I have had the honor to submit, the injunction of secrecy will be confined to such treaties as may be specially communicated in confidence by the Executive and to such nominations as the Senate in the exercise of a sound discretion may deem it necessary, from considerations affecting private character or the public service, to discuss in privacy.

There is a large class of treaties legislative in their character, and including very important public considerations, which ought to be publicly debated. There is no reason why they should be considered in secret session. On the contrary, in respect to treaties of this character it is quite desirable that the public should be informed, and fully informed as to their provisions and as to the debates and votes here upon them. So also many, and indeed almost all, nominations are confirmed or rejected upon principles of public or party policy, without reference to private character. I see no reason why debates and votes upon these should not be public. Whenever any questions involving moral character are raised, it will be in the power of any committee or any member to move that the doors be closed.

There can then be no objection to the adoption of the resolution upon either of the grounds generally relied on by the advocates of secret sessions. Those grounds are, first, that secrecy is frequently necessary to the success of important negotiations with foreign countries, and that this secrecy would be impossible if the treaties should be debated and voted upon in public. There may be some force in this, but the objection does not touch the proposed amendment. The President has charge of foreign negotiations and is the best judge of the occasions on which secrecy is required, and whatever he thinks proper to communicate in confidence will still be treated as confidential, if the rule which I propose should be adopted.

The second ground of objection is that private character should not be made the subject of public debate. I will not say that this objection would not deserve consideration if the proposed rule imperatively required the public consideration of all nominations without exception. But it does not. It expressly excepts from its operation those special cases in which the Senate by resolution may enjoin secrecy. Such orders will be made when the nature of particular cases make such orders necessary or proper. In all other cases where the action of the Senate is determined by general or purely political considerations, the people have a right to know the character of our discussions and the reasons of our votes. Our institutions are based upon the principle of publicity and responsibility-secret sessions are exceptions to these general principles; these exceptions should be confined within the narrowest practicable limits, and reduced to the smallest possible number.

SENATE.

upon a treaty, it would be supposed that there was something especially delicate in our foreign relations. From this, considerations might be derived affecting the supposed probability of peace or war, and also the credit, and it may be the stocks, of the country, and in order to prevent suspicion, we should be forced to go into open session, and consider in public what ought to be considered in private.

I do not believe that any sensible amount of mischief has arisen from the fact that our deliberations upon nominations and treaties have been secret. I believe we have deliberated with quite as much regard for public interest under the seal of secrecy, when we were really advising and consulting the President in regard to its matters, as we should have done if we had thrown open the doors and subjected our debates and our votes to popular scrutiny. I believe it is far safer to adhere to the rule than to make the change which is now proposed.

Mr. BORLAND. I am sorry to differ from my friend from Virginia in supposing that any detriment can come to the public interest of this country by subjecting anything and everything to public scrutiny. I cannot conceive the case of a treaty or anything else in which injury could come to the public interest by opening them to full inspection.

Mr. HUNTER. Does the Senator think it would be better to expose the deliberations of the President and Cabinet council to public scrutiny?

Mr. BORLAND. I should have no objection to it so far as they could be made public. I do not believe, as an American citizen and an American Senator, that any public officer of the Government has the right to utter sentiments affecting the public interest, which are not properly before the public for the inspection of every man in it. That is the ground on which I stand; and I stand upon it, because I believe the popular intelligence is sufficient to discuss wisely and properly every question that may come before the country. As to a man's private affairs, he may do as he pleases. The public have nothing to do with them, so far as they relate to him and his family; but so far as relates to the public interests of society, and the public interests of this country, whether on our own soil, or as they will stand in relation to foreign countries, I believe no man has a right to express a sentiment, or do any act which every man in this country, who has the rights and responsibilities of a citizen, who is to bear the burden of the Government, and whose interest is to be affected by its action, has not a right to know. That is my view of the relations between the public officers of this Government, whether legislative, executive, or judicial, and the people. I cannot conceive that this Government can properly be administered upon any other ground, unless we deny to the people the requisite amount of intelligence, patriotism, and honesty to give a fair consideration to all questions, and dispose of them as the interests of the country require.

These are the general considerations on which I stand in relation to this matter. Gentlemen seem to think that there is something sacred in a man's private character. I admit that there is, yet when he comes forward as an applicant or candidate for public favor, there is nothing that the public has not a right, and ought not to be permitted to know.

Mr. HUNTER. It seems to me that this proposes a very important change in our rules, and one which I fear would be very mischievous. As it now stands, the general rule is that when Exec-Sir, utive communications are made in reference to treaties and nominations, our deliberations are to be in secret, unless we choose to order otherwise. If we do make the deliberations public, that is the exception. This proposes to reverse the rule, and require that all discussions shall be public unless the President or we, on account of special considerations, choose to make them secret. The result will be that we shall have no more secret sessions in relation to these matters. It involves a total change of the rule. It will lead to that result, because if, upon the question of a nomination, the Senate chooses to say that its consideration shall be secret, immediately it will be proclaimed to the world that the man has been accused, and he will desire to know of what he has been accused, and how he can defend himself.

So, too, in relation to treaties. If, contrary to the general rule, which this proposes, to consider them in public, we should go into secret session

is there anything more sacred in the character of an individual who comes before the Senate, nominated by the President for an office under this Government, than there is in the character of an individual who goes before a State Legislature for a seat on this floor, or before the people for a seat in the other House of Congress, or for a place in a State Legislature, or for a governor, judge, or anything to which the people are electable? I conceive not; and whoever supposes at home or anywhere but here, when a man becomes a candidate for office that his character is so sacred that we cannot talk about it in public? What do our newspaper presses do with every man's character who places himself before the public as a candidate for office? They examine him in every particular. They hold him up to the gaze of the public. If he has faults, they make them known; and they ought to be made known. Why then should the character of a man who wants to be a foreign minister, an auditor, a treasurer, a secre