Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

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

tary of State, or any other officer to whose appointment we advise and consent, be more sacred? The public have a right to know his character. If it be good then he is fit for the office. If it be bad the people have a right to know it; and their representatives in the Senate have no right to confirm a nomination unless it is of a character with which the people can be satisfied.

With regard to the treaties, I may be behind the age in which I live. It is probable that I am; but I cannot conceive of an instance when it is necessary that a treaty should be acted upon in secret. I do believe that if in all our discussions upon treaties the doors of the Senate had been open, and the newspaper press at liberty to comment upon our proceedings, very many treaties which are now the law of the land would never have been ratified. I do not believe the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo or the Clayton-Bulwer treaty would have been ratified; or at any rate we should have been spared the almost interminable discussion which we had at a recent session, consuming almost all our time, and costing how much money, I do not know, if they had been laid before the public, when the newspaper press could have taken them up and discussed them, and the people could have understood them. I believe there are many men who voted for those treaties, who would be glad if they could go back and vote "no" upon them. I believe incalculable mischief has been done to the public interests by having secret discussions, and I believe it would be avoided if the doors were always open to reporters of the public press, and to the people themselves to come in, and hear every word uttered on the floor, and then be permitted to discuss among themselves every question which is before us.

[blocks in formation]

sents itself to my mind-that suggested by the countries, we should have much less cause of
Senator from Virginia [Mr. HUNTER] in regard to trouble. I know these may be considered ultra
the subject of nominations. If it is to be under- Democratic, and radical notions. Very well, I
stood that all nominations are to be public, unless am content to entertain them, and leave to those
when particular nominations are designated as the gentlemen who believe there is something sacred
subject of private consideration, every time we in the character of our Government, some rights
consider a nomination in private it will involve us peculiar to it, separate and apart from the people,
in difficulty. I have had occasion to oppose nom- to entertain the opposite opinion; but until I can
inations for my own State, even those sent in by believe that the people are not sufficiently intelli-
a Whig Administration, and to give my reasons gent or virtuous to be intrusted with their own
for so doing; and I have had occasion to say here affairs, and that the representative shall not be
that appointments made even by my own political held directly and strictly responsible for every-
friends were of a very objectionable character. thing he does, and everything he says in relation
Nominations of this kind come before us, and Sen- to the public interest, I shall be opposed to any-
ators feeling a delicacy on the subject would not thing like secrecy in our proceedings. If our pro-
feel at liberty to speak with perfect freedom in ceedings are right we have no cause to fear their
public of the character of a man who may be up being submitted to the people. If we are not con-
for an office, and whom we should think incompe-scious that they are right, if they are of a doubt-
tent for the office, and if one were to move to make
the matter one for the private consideration of the
Senate, the motion itself would indicate what was
to follow. Under these circumstances, of all things
on earth the nominations for offices submitted to
the consideration of the Senate should be treated
as confidential, as we would treat them in our per-
sonal intercourse. I trust, therefore, the practice
of the Senate will not be departed from. I know
the subject has been agitated and discussed, but
the result of the discussion has always been that
the Senate has adhered to its preceding practice;
and I think if the contrary method obtained the
experience of the Senate would, in a few months,
show them the necessity for changing it back to
the old one.

Mr. BORLAND. I am not at all surprised to hear the sentiments expressed by the Senator from Vermont, for I would say with all respect to him Mr. PHELPS. During my experience in this that they are appropriate to the political party to body, several efforts have been made to change which he belongs, and to so able a representative the rule of the Senate in relation to our mode of of it as he is upon this floor. It is perfectly natholding Executive sessions; and to my gratifica-ural for gentlemen of his political school to suppose tion every attempt of that kind has been successfully resisted. I have to say now that from the very existence of the Senate down to the present day, the rule which now obtains has governed it. We have then from the first organization of the Senate to the present day, the opinions of all who have gone before us in support of the rule as it now exists, to treat matters of a certain description in secret session. Why should we abolish it? Why should we at this stage of the Senate with a bare quorum present take it upon ourselves to change permanently the character of the Senate, and to regulate the proceedings of those who are to come after us? Sir, a radical change of this kind ought not to be made hastily. It ought not to be made in a moment, when the sense of a full Senate cannot be obtained.

Mr. BORLAND. Will the Senator permit me to say that this is not a new question? Five years ago it was before the body, and it has been more or less discussed at every session since.

Mr. PHELPS. That is just what I remarked in the outset, that efforts have been made from time to time to abolish our present rule, and they have always been unsuccessful. There are most abundant reasons for our holding secret sessions. Does any man believe that our negotiations with foreign nations can be conducted with success, if every project which is started by the treaty-making power is to be made and acted upon subject to public inspection at the time? Are we to gain anything by exhibiting our diplomacy to the world when the practice of the rest of the world is to keep their diplomacy to themselves? It seems to me that we are not. We are often compelled, in the discussion of treaties, to act upon considerations which at the moment would not bear to meet the public view. Take the instance suggested by the Senator, the treaty of peace with Mexico. That treaty was negotiated during a period of great excitement. When we were called upon to act on it the excited state of feeling arising from the war in which we were then involved was very high, and it was therefore our duty not to be guided by the public feeling and public excitement, but by our own deliberate judgment on the subject, trusting to a rational view afterwards, when the public excitement subsided, to justify ourselves before the public. And that we could not have done in open session.

But there is another consideration which pre

that this Government (for I understand that to be
one of the fundamental principles of his party) is
something separate and apart from the people-
above them and having rights which the people
have not. I was a little surprised, though, to hear
the Senator from Virginia, [Mr. HUNTER,] because
he belongs to another political school which does
hold to responsibility on the part of the represent-
ative to the constituents. But, sir, the Senator
from Vermont I think is perfectly consistent. He
is acting upon and carrying out the great principle
upon which his party has acted in all its policy
from the beginning of the Government down. The
idea that the Government is a thing separate and
apart from the people, and looks down upon them
as altogether without intelligence and disqualified
for considering and determining on matters relative
to their interest, is drawn from Governments on
the other side of the Atlantic; but under this Gov-
ernment, which is based upon the very idea of the
intelligence of the people, their competency for
self-government, their sufficiency in point of pub-
lic virtue and intelligence to understand and dis-
charge wisely and properly all questions relating
to their interests, it seems to me that such a doc-
trine is altogether out of place.

ful policy or positively wrong, we should not engage in them. Sir, I want my constituents to know not only what I do in regard to their interests, but what I think. I would entertain no opinion and express none, and give no vote that I would not desire them to know, and the reasons which govern me in giving it.

Mr. PHELPS. Mr. President, I am extremely gratified with the position which the honorable Senator has taken. Although I have been for some years a member of this body, I have never considered myself as the particular exponent of the principles and views of any party. If the Senator attributes to my party sentiments which the honorable Senator from Virginia has just advanced, and if I am the exponent of Whig principles and practices, unfortunately the distinguished Senator from Virginia is in the same category. Now, sir, I might retort upon the Senator, and ask him if the Senator from Virginia is an exponent of Whig principles? In the few remarks which I made, I alluded to the practice of the Senate from its origin to the present day, during which it has been sustained by all who have gone before us, and certainly they were not all Whigs.

But, sir, there is another consideration here. Is not the Senator aware that this practice has prevailed during a period of some sixty or seventy years, and when the majority in the Senate has consisted of his party? Has it not been so during most of our experience here? And if this rule be one consisting of Whig principles and Whig notions, how happens it that the Senator and his political friends have not abrogated it? Sir, if this is a Whig doctrine it comes with not a very good grace from a gentleman associated with the majority of this body, to retort upon us.

I do not know that anything fell from me in the remarks which I submitted, which would indicate that I had any party view in the expression of them. I spoke of the propriety of the thing. Now, I put it to the Senator from Arkansas himself, if a nomination were made from his own State, which was unpalatable to himself, would he be willing to express his views fully in public upon it? I am perhaps not a man of as much firmness as he is, but I do not think that I would. And here let me remark that this rule of the Senate has been made for its own protection, and it ought With regard to treaties, it seems to me that not to be submitted to the discretion of the Presi sscret negotiations are very proper to European dent. It is not for the Executive to determine countries, where the Governments do not look to whether our proceedings shall be in secret or in the interests of the people, but only to the interest public. It pertains to the dignity of the body to of the particular dynasty that happens to be reign-regulate that. If a nomination is made, and the ing at the time, and where the diplomacy and President consults us in relation to the propriety negotiations consist in a sort of family arrange- of that nomination, the very proposition is confiment for the benefit of the governors, and not of dential in its character. Suppose the chairman of the governed, leading to many things with which a committee to whom a nomination is referred in we do not have anything to do in our treaties, this body appeals to me and says, "Sir, here is a such as their contracts for marriage for the pur- nomination for your own State; you know the pose of sustaining such a dynasty on a particular man; what do you say of him?" I may reply throne, for the elevation of one and putting down that he is a very good citizen, but that in my humof another, and to carry out some combination ble opinion he has not the integrity which entitles among the nations. We stand apart from all such him to that office. Would any chairman of a considerations as those. We have no connection committee in this body feel himself at liberty to with them. We have no such connection with come and report to the Senate that I had expressed other Governments. We deny the right of other doubts of his integrity? Would any member of a governments to interfere in our affairs, and we committee who consulted a Senator from the State, disclaim the right on our part to interfere with feel at liberty to disclose a communication which theirs. It has seemed to me from the limited view was asked for as confidential? Now, sir, if there I have been able to take of the subject, that our would be no propriety in that, if there would be system of diplomacy has been one of humbuggery no propriety in disclosing it to an assembly of this and deceit, and that if we had a little plain sailing character, is there any propriety in calling in the and open dealing in our relations with foreign whole country as witnesses to what I would say

32D CONG....3D SESS.

in respect to the man? The Senator seems to consider that all the affairs are of a private nature. But there are considerations which come before us connected with confidential communications between us and the President, which are in their very nature confidential, and ought to be so treated, and would be so treated in the private intercourse of all honorable men.

I am not disposed to protract this discussion, but, sir, I must be permitted to say that whatever may be the views of other gentlemen, I hope and trust that I shall leave this place, and take leave of public life with a better consciousness than that of having been the mere organ of a party. In the remarks which I made I had no regard to any question in its political aspect. If it were a party question the matter would have been different. In the remarks which I made, I had only reference to what was the practice of the Senate, and the propriety of that practice.

Mr. BUTLER. This is not the first time that this subject has been under the consideration of the Senate since I have been a member of it. I recollect that some five or six years ago an honorable Senator from Ohio, [Mr. Allen,] introduced a resolution of the same kind; and I know that in the discussion which took place at that time all the old and respected Senators who were then in the Senate, Mr. Calhoun, Mr. Clay, and Mr. Webster, took the same ground with the fathers of the Republic, and without distinction of party insisted upon the security of this usage; that is, of the Senate being a confidential body for certain purposes to advise the President. I should be very sorry to see it departed from. This is not a pure democracy. If the Government of the United States was an undisguised and simple democracy, perhaps the gentlemen might well insist upon a resolution of this kind. They might make the Senate the arena for the discussion of every subject as was done in Athens, or in democracies where the people directly had a vote. But we are a confederacy of organized republics, and we live under a constitution-a constitution by whose obligations I feel bound, as well as the usages under it.

In private life when we have very grave matters to consider, we generally call friends into confidential consultation. Grand juries are organized upon the same principle.

Mr. BORLAND. Very improperly. Mr. BUTLER. The Senator says very improperly. I am one of those who believe that there is much more wisdom in the experience and trial and ordeal of time than in a hasty judgment. It has been quaintly said by some one that constitutions are made by a few sober men to control themselves and the many when they are drunk. I believe that it is not an unwise proposition, that a constitution should be made deliberately and absolutely to guard us against temptations of excitement when Occasions might arise to inflame the passions.

In regard to discussions on treaties, if foreign nations were to understand that we were to deliberate upon their secret communications, and upon their treaties, in public, I doubt very much whether they would make such communications as would enable us to take such advantages as would be of service to us. I doubt very much whether they would not withhold from us the very clue to the system of policy to enable us to adopt it with intelligence. Sir, such discussions of treaties is unknown in any other Government. I know it is said that this is a perfect democracy, that this is a model republic, which is to set everything at defiance, and that all that has gone before us, and the precepts and example of our ancestors, are so many impediments in the way of the progress of modern intelligence. I do not think so. I have the organ of veneration. If you are to open the galleries of the Senate to witness the discussion of nominations, in many instances, rather than go out to take my share in the collisions with men on the streets, I would say nothing at all. I might be tempted, from a sense of justice, to do so. If Senators and the President asked my opinion I would give it freely and fairly, but I would give it under such circumstances at least as not to subject myself to the popular mobs that might be organized out of the Chamber.

The old usages of our Government seem to be crumbling away. Democratic clubs and associations are taking the steps that should emanate NEW SERIES.-No. 21.

Special Session-Voting by Machinery.

from the people. Sir, I am as much a friend of the people as the Senator; but I am a friend to the people whose judgment, whose public interest is to be respected. I am not a friend of that people who are to be regarded as the irresponsible multitude, whose transient public sentiments are not to govern me. If this country is to preserve its liberty, and we are to appeal to the tribunal of the people, I want it to be one of intelligence; and it is on that account that I wish to preserve this Government in its ancient form. I am not one of those who would break down, unnecessarily at least, any of the great landmarks which our forefathers prescribed for our guidance.

Mr. SUMNER. Party allusions and party considerations have been brought to bear upon this question. I wish to regard it for a moment in the light of the Constitution and our institutions. In the Constitution there is no injunction of secrecy on any of the proceedings of the Senate; nor is there any requirement of publicity. To the Senate is left absolutely the determination of its rules of proceedings. In thus abstaining from all regulation of this matter the framers of the Constitution have obviously regarded it as in all respects within the discretion of the Senate, to be exercised from time to time as it thinks best.

The Senate exercises three important functions: First, the legislative or parliamentary power, wherein it acts concurrently with the House of Representatives, as well as the President; secondly, the power "to advise and consent" to treaties with foreign countries in concurrence with the President; and, thirdly, the power "to advise and consent" to nominations by the President to offices under the Constitution. I say nothing of another, rarely called into exercise, the sole power to try impeachments.

SENATE.

Resolved, That the 34th rule of the Senate be amended by adding to the clause providing for a committee of three members, whose duty it shall be to audit and control the contingent expenses of the Senate, the following:

And to whom shall be referred all resolutions directing the payment of money out of the contingent fund of the Senate, or creating a charge on the same.

PUBLICATION OF DEBATES.

Mr. SEWARD. I offer the following resolution, and ask for its consideration now:

Resolved, That the Secretary be authorized to procure the publication in the National Intelligencer, of so much of the debates of the Senate during the last session of Congress as has not been already published in that paper, and to pay for such publication, and also for the publication of speeches of that session already made in the Intelligencer, the sum of four dollars per column.

Mr. CHASE. Let it lie over.

[blocks in formation]

On motion by Mr. MASON, it was Ordered, That when the Senate adjourns to-day, it be to meet to-morrow at two o'clock.

VOTING BY MACHINERY.

Mr. HOUSTON presented the memorial of Henry Johnson, the inventer of a new mode for taking the yeas and nays, asking an appropriation to enable him to make a trial of his machine in the Senate Chamber.

The memorial was read.

Mr. HOUSTON. In submitting that memorial I am willing to acknowledge that I am not sufficient of a mechanic to pronounce a positive decision upon this new mode of taking the yeas and nays; but from the examination which I have

At the first organization of the Government the proceedings of the Senate, whether in legislation or on treaties or on nominations, were with closed doors. In this respect the legislative business and executive business were conducted alike. This continued down to the second session of the Third Congress, in 1794, when, in pursuance of a formal resolution, the galleries were allowed to be opened so long as the Senate were engaged in their legisla-been able to give it, in connection with other Sentive capacity, unless in such cases as might, in the opinion of the Senate, require secrecy; and this rule has continued ever since. Here was an exercise of

the discretion of the Senate,in obvious harmony with public sentiment and the spirit of our institutions.

The change now proposed goes still further. It opens the doors on all occasions, whether legislative or executive, except when specially ordered otherwise. The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. BUTLER] says that the Senate is a confidential body, and should be ready to receive confidential communications from the President. But this will still be the case if we adopt the resolution now under consideration. The limitation proposed seems ample for all exigencies, while the general rule will be publicity. The Executive sessions with closed doors, shrouded from the public gaze and public criticism, constitute an exceptional part of our system, too much in harmony with the proceedings of other Governments less liberal in character. The genius of our institutions requires publicity. The ancient Roman who bade his architect so to construct his house that his guests and all that he did could be seen by the world, is a fit model for the American people.

Mr. MASON. I move to postpone the further consideration of the resolution until to-morrow. The motion was agreed to.

[blocks in formation]

ators older and more experienced than myself, I feel convinced that the adoption of it will be the means of a great saving of time, that in point of accuracy it is perfect, and it will afford Senators who wish to talk a much better opportunity than they now have. It will have a tendency to shorten the sessions of Congress, and particularly so in the House of Representative, if it should answer the purpose for which it is intended, as I believe it will. The sum required for the purpose of making the experiment is inconsiderable compared to the value that will ultimately result to the Government if it should be found efficient as is expected. Fifteen hundred dollars is all that will be necessary, and that will enable a key to be put at every Senator's desk and the machine to be put in operation. In the operation of the machine there is no possibility of an inaccuracy taking place. I know not how many Senators have examined it; but I am sure that any one who has paid any attention to its operation in the hands of the inventor must be satisfied that it is a perfect machine of its kind.

It may be objected that in the working of the machine while the yeas and nays are being taken, if a Senator were not in his own seat he could not vote. That is very easily obviated, for when the yeas and nays are read over by the Clerk, after the vote has been taken, he could record his vote in the same manner as is done now. He could do that if he were absent and came in during the call of the yeas and nays or at their termination, so that no objection can be made to it on that ground. No other person but the Senator himself can vote in his seat. If the machine is fixed at his desk he has his key and can lock it when he leaves it. No one can take advantage of his position to vote in his absence; and not only that, if he should lose his key, all that he will have to do when the yeas and nays are read over will be to address the President and record his vote as is now done. It will not conceal the vote of any individual. He cannot vote covertly because his name will be read by the Clerk as soon as the voting has taken place. I can see no possible objection to the machine. If the experiment should prove it to be

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

worth anything, it will certainly be worth the sum which it will take to make it. If it should prove successful, the House of Representatives can adopt it, and it will save half of their time, which they may add to their hour turns of speaking; for it takes half an hour there to take the yeas and nays. The confusion which is incident to the taking of the yeas and nays by the present mode, can all be obviated. They can be taken in one minute, as well as in ten hours. The only trouble will be that the Clerk will have to read over the names after they have been recorded. If the proposition should meet the approbation of the Senate, I really think that it has never adopted anything for its convenience or for the saving of time, since it has been a deliberative body, that will be more effectual than the plan proposed. I do not wish to take it on myself positively to say so. Gentlemen have the same opportunity to examine the machine that I have. Tact from the conviction that it is useful, necessary, and proper, and that it will be of great advantage, both in the saving of time and as a matter of accuracy. I move that the resolution which I offered yesterday on this subject be taken up for consideration.

The resolution was read, as follows:

"Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate be, and he is hereby, 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 the construction shall not exceed the sum of $1,500, to be paid out of the contingent fund of the Senate."

Mr. BRIGHT. The resolution, I presume, must go to the Committee on the Contingent Expenses of the Senate.

The PRESIDENT. Certainly. Under the rule adopted this morning, that resolution goes to the Committee on Contingent Expenses.

Mr. HOUSTON. The resolution was introduced yesterday, and I suppose, according to the practice of the Senate, it can be taken up for consideration now.

The PRESIDENT. In the opinion of the Chair, it goes to the committee.

Mr. HOUSTON. Do I understand that the rule adopted this morning, has a retroactive operation? The resolution was submitted before the rule was proposed.

The PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Texas appeal from the decision of the Chair?

Mr. HOUSTON. No, sir. I move that memorial be referred to the same committee. The motion was agreed to.

PAPERS WITHDRAWN.

On motion by Mr. SHIELDS, Thomas G. Clinton had leave to withdraw his memorial and papers in relation to the Potomac bridge.

EXECUTIVE BUSINESS.

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

The Senate adjourned.

FRIDAY, April 8, 1853. Prayer by the Rev. J. G. BUTler.

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.

VOTING BY MACHINERY.

Mr. BRIGHT, from the Committee to Audit and Control the Contingent Expenses of the Senate, to which was referred a resolution proposing to appropriate $1,500 to enable Henry Johnson, the inventor, to make an experiment, in the Senate Chamber, of his new mode of taking the yeas and nays, reported, by direction of a majority of the committee, the same back for the consideration of the Senate.

Mr. HOUSTON. I understand that objections really exist in the Senate to this machine, and I shall be glad to hear from any gentleman those which he may entertain. I am satisfied that I can answer them to his entire satisfaction; I do not care what they are. I think it is so perfectly unexceptionable, and it has so many advantages

Special Session-Voting by Machinery.

to recommend its adoption, that I really think, if
the Senate will reflect upon it, that they will not
hesitate about it. I will remark, in the mean time,
that it will not be so important in the Senate, where
there are but sixty-two names to call, as in the
House, where there are more than two hundred
names. It will expedite business there, and will be a
saving of at least one half the time which they con-
sume. It will also enable them to dispense with
their one-hour rule, and will give them an oppor-
tunity of speaking as long as they please. It will
take the yeas and nays with equal accuracy as,
and in a great deal less time than, the present
mode. The majority of the committee indorse
my opinion as will all who examine the machine.
It will cost but $1,500 to make the experiment,
and as gentlemen have objections to it, I should
like to hear them.

SENATE.

over to me, and I may use them as I thumb the keys of a piano, and who would detect it? The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. BUTLER] suggests that a Senator might lose his key. That is very true; but each man is presumed not to lose, and wherever he is in the Chamber before the yeas and nays are taken, he must, when the vote is given, be in his seat; and I can imagine nothing more proper than to hear you, sir, in the place which you so well occupy arranging the Senate: "Senators to your places; are you all ready?" [Laughter.] It would be very much like an old militia training where, after getting the soldiers in order, you ask "Are you all ready;" and when all are ready then comes the word "Fire." The whole thing in my judgment is ridiculous.

As to making an experiment in the Senate for the benefit of the House of Representatives, I think it would be highly improper. Besides, I was long enough of that body to know that in this very

stitutional rights of its members. It is the right of a minority sometimes to consume the time of that House when, in the last stages of legislation, erroneous and objectionable measures are attempted to be forced upon them by a bare majority. I have been a member there, as I would be anywhere, to resist legislation of that kind, and resort to all constitutional expedients-the calling of the yeas and nays is one of them-to defeat it. The argument, that it is wholly inappropriate for us to undertake to try experiments for the House, 18 a sufficient answer to the proposition. I would not make the allusion to the Senate, nor would I make it disrespectfully to the House, but it is suggested by Senators here that it is very convenient, at least for some men, to know how others vote before they vote themselves; and if the voting is to be done by a mechanical process they will be deprived wholly of that privilege. Those men who follow file leaders will not know in which direction their file leader is going, and they might perchance vote ay when they meant no. That would be another great mistake. I repeat that I think the whole thing is really ridiculous.

Mr. DODGE, of Iowa. I was in the minority of the committee on this subject. I cannot give a positive opinion as to this machine itself. It ap-calling of the yeas and nays lies one of the conpears to me, however, that the delay occasioned by the present mode of taking the yeas and nays, which is a serious evil in the House of Representatives, does not exist here. If that body wishes to use this new method of taking its yeas and nays, I am disposed to let it do so, but I am not disposed to say that the Senate shall try the experiment for the benefit of the House of Representatives. One reason why I am opposed to this machine is, that sometimes a gentleman votes in the negative when he wishes to vote in the affirmative, and the reading over of the names in a hurry may not enable him to detect the erroneous vote. It is a sort of machinery that may be suitable to such a body as the House of Representatives where perhaps there is a great loss of time occasioned by the present method of taking the yeas and nays, but I think it is not such a one as we should have adopted in this body. I think that the inventor is an ingenious man. I wish to do nothing to injure his rising prospects, or in any way detract from his invention. I am in favor of promoting inventions, and am even willing to be humbugged to a moderate extent; and I never laugh at any attempt which is made at an invention. We live in an extraordinary age; and it seems to me that wonders will never cease. If Napoleon had listened to Fulton and not spurned him away, he might have been the conqueror of England. But such great results will hardly attend this invention. However, I do not wish to depreciate it. I believe the inventor is a meritorious young man. If he can only satisfy the House of Representatives, in which such a loss of time is occasioned by the present method of taking the yeas and nays, that it is advisable that his machine should be adopted there, I would like to see it carried into practice; and when the Senate becomes expanded by the creation of more States out of the immense territory which we are to obtain, there may be a necessity for it here, but at present I think there is none.

Mr. HAMLIN. The Senator from Iowa has very well stated some of the objections which exist, at least in my mind, to the adoption of the measure proposed by the resolution, but he has not stated all of them. Every innovation is clearly not an improvement. There are some things which should be done in the old way and in no other way. I am inclined to think that the taking of the yeas and nays is to be classed amongst them. It is suggested here by learned and able Senators as one principal reason why we should not adopt this machine, that it is clearly unconstitutional, as the Constitution recognizes but two ways of voting, viva voce or by ballot. I think it is clearly an innovation on the Constitution, if it is not unconstitutional in fact; and as is well suggested by my friend from Connecticut, [Mr. ToUCEY,] it may be an innovation upon such gentlemen as some who have been members of this body, because it will deprive them of the opportunity of speaking in the only way in which they were ever known to speak.

But, sir, there is another idea in relation to this matter which I beg to suggest to the Senate. I think on the whole it is ridiculous, and may well be treated as such. My friend who sits upon my right and my friend on my left are each to have a certain fixed key which, when touched, gives the vote yea or nay. They may give me authority to vote for them in their absence, pass their keys

Mr. MALLORY. The idea of taking the yeas and nays by machinery is not a new one. It is a very old one. Some eight years ago, a very ingenious friend of mine in Florida, invented a very curious and pretty machine for the purpose, and when he came here to obtain a patent, found that five days before, a patent had been issued to another man for a machine in all respects similar to and very nearly the same as his own. There are some twenty different machines now existing for the purpose, many of which I have examined. The one which we have now before us is particularly ingenious, and would no doubt accomplish the object, if it be designed that the Senate shall give up the practice of voting by voice and adopting that of voting by machinery; and if that practice be adopted, I apprehend it would be simply an entering wedge. You would be required to go on and give the vote by machinery, to take it by machinery, and to announce it by machinery. I do not see but that one could be done as well as the other.

The Senator from Maine, in the climax of his remarks, aptly said that the calling of the yeas and nays is one of the greatest safeguards of a minority. It is said by the Senator from Iowa that he has no idea of trying experiments for the House, as if the machine should be tried in a large body first. If it is to be tried at all, if there be any propriety in it, it should be in a small body, where the rights of the minority are not protected to such a degree, by the calling of the yeas and nays. But in the House of Representatives, where it is proposed to put a machine of this kind, they should by no means set aside the present practice, which is one of the greatest guards of the rights of a minority under our Government.

But, sir, how is it possible to detect the absence of Senators who are not disposed to do their duties to the country if this machinery is to be adopted, by which the power of voting could be delegated to one of the pages of the Senate? Certainly one of the pages could attend to it as well as the Senator himself, and certainly the most important matters of the body might be adopted with not six members of the Senate present. Now, it is not true, as has been suggested, that the losing of the

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

key will deprive the Senator of the power of voting, because the key to the ingenious machine is simply to lock it up and prevent its use by others. But, if Senators choose not to employ the key, the machine would be open to any person. I apprehend, however, that it is exceedingly essential that the presence of a Senator should always be manifested by his voice; and it would certainly be dangerous to give him the opportunity of delegating the power of touching the machine and voting yea or

nay.

But, sir, when an innovation of this kind is proposed an innovation which is entirely new, in any legislative body on earth, the British Parliament, or anywhere else, I apprehend that some reason should be given for it. I apprehend that the constitutional method of voting, which has been pursued heretofore should be shown to be erroneous in some particular.

The honorable Senator from Texas, however, has given a very singular reason for the introduction of this machine, which is, that it will enable Senators to make more speeches. If there be anything that would deter, me from voting for it, it would be that consideration.

Special Session-Publication of Debates.

additional copies of the report of the Committee
on Frauds and Abuses was considered but not
disposed of.

EXECUTIVE SESSION.

The Senate proceeded to the consideration of Executive business; and after some time spent therein the doors were reopened.

EMPLOYMENT OF MESSENGERS.

Mr. BRIGHT submitted the following resolution:

Resolved, That so much of any resolution or order of the Senate as provides for the employment of any person by name or otherwise, under the direction of the Sergeant-atArmis, be repealed, and that such persons shall hereafter hold their employment by the same tenure as other messengers. On motion the Senate adjourned until two o'clock

to-morrow.

SATURDAY, April 9, 1853.
Prayer by the Rev. J. G. BUTler.
On motion by Mr. PHELPS, it was
Ordered, That William O'Brien have leave to withdraw
his petition and papers.

ADJOURNMENT SINE DIE.

Mr. BUTLER. If the Senator from Texas insists upon this matter, I shall move an amendment Mr. HUNTER submitted the following resoby way of economizing time to enable us to deter-lution; which was considered and agreed to: mine when we will have a vote, and how we ought to vote. I suppose the spiritual rappers could ascertain that for us in ample time, and if we were in an ante-room we should know when to be in our seats to record our votes. [Laughter.]

But, Mr. President, in voting I should like to hear the Senator's voice. Sometimes it is very earnest; at other times it gives a very faint assent er dissent. The mere tones of the voice have a good deal to do with my judgment, and I do not know that I should be disinclined to acknowledge it openly.

Mr. HOUSTON replied to the objections of

Senators seriatim.

The question was then taken on the resolution, and it was rejected.

MESSENGER TO THE SENATE.

The Senate proceeded to the consideration of the following resolution, some time since submitted by Mr. BADGER:

"Resolved, That the Sergeant-at-Arms be authorized to employ Preston Starrit, as messenger, from the first day of April, and that during the recess he shall, under the direction of the Sergeant-at-Arins, take care of the Senate committee rooms, and perform such other duties as may be assigned to him."

Mr. DOUGLAS. I do not know the person named in that resolution, nor do I know the object or necessity of it, but it has occurred to me that the appointing of messengers by resolution offered by this Senator and that Senator, disturbs the police of the Senate. I think we should intrust our police solely to the Sergeant-at-Arms. Let us provide how many messengers we shall have, and then put them under his charge, and hold him responsible. I know that heretofore when complaints have been made to the Sergeant-at-Arms, in relation to something that was wrong, he has told me, I have no control over that man. Some Senator takes a favorite, and puts him in by resolution; he is independent of everybody about the Senate; he is independent of the Senators; there is no mode of calling him to account, no mode of enforcing a compliance with rules. I dislike to interpose when Senators feel a personal interest in the matter; but really I am opposed to the system of appointing messengers by a resolution, and thereby relieving them from all responsibility to the Sergeant-at-Arms.

Mr. SHIELDS. My impression is that the Sergeant-at-Arms would appoint this man if he had the power, and I think he ought to appoint him. He is an excellent man whom I would like to see appointed. I would prefer, therefore, to let the resolution lie over for the present, until I can see the Sergeant-at-Arms in reference to it and ascertain whether he can appoint him.

The resolution was accordingly passed over.

HOUR OF MEETING.

Resolved, That a committee, consisting of two members, be appointed by the President pro tem. to wait on the Pres ident of the United States, and inform him that unless he may have further communications to make, the Senate will close this session at one o'clock on Monday next.

Mr. HUNTER and Mr. EVERETT were appointed the committee.

Mr. HUNTER subsequently reported that the committee had discharged its duty, and that the President had informed them that he had no further communication to make; he therefore submitted the following resolution; which was considered by unanimous consent and agreed to:

Resolved, That the President pro tempore close the present session by adjourning the Senate sine die on Monday next, at one o'clock.

THANKS TO THE PRESIDENT PRO TEM.

Mr. CLAYTON submitted the following resolution; which was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to:

Resolved, That the unanimous thanks of the Senate be, and the same are hereby, tendered to the Hon. DAVID R. ATCHISON, for the very able, dignified and impartial manner in which he has presided over the deliberations of the Senate during the special session now about to terminate.

MESSENGERS TO THE SENATE.

The following resolution, submitted yesterday by Mr. BRIGHT, was considered and agreed to:

"Resolved, That so much of any resolution or order of the Senate as provides for the employment of any person, by name, as messenger or otherwise, under the Sergeant at Arms, be repealed, and that such persons hereafter hold their employment by the same tenure as other messengers.” CUSTOM-HOUSE AT SAN FRANCISCO.

Mr. WELLER. I submit the following resolution for consideration:

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury be requested to transmit to the Senate a copy of the report made by Gilbert Rodman, of California, to the Department, upon the subject of the custom-house at San Francisco, California.

I ask for the consideration of the resolution at this time. I do not know whether it is necessary to make any remarks in reference to it. A report which was made, in 1851, to the Department, disclosed a number of frauds that had been perpetrated while the custom-house was under the control of Colonel Collier. That report was on the files of the Department; but the Secretary has informed us that it has been abstracted. The accounts of Colonel Collier, in the mean while, have been adjusted at the Department. The agent of the Govout a draft of the report from the rough notes. ernment has supplied the deficiency by making That report has been placed on file, and my object is to get it laid before the Senate at once, as I am sure it will be if the resolution be adopted.

SENATE.

which were considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to:

Resolved, That the Select Committee on Mexican Claims be authorized to file their report upon the matters submitted to their consideration after the adjournment of the Senate. Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate be authorized to receive said report and to have the usual number of the same printed.

Resolved, That the services of the clerk of said committee be continued for one mouth after the adjournment of the Senate.

MESSAGE ON THE FISHERIES.

On motion by Mr. HAMLIN, the vote on the passage of the resolution on the 6th instant, ordering five thousand extra copies of the report of the Secretary of State relating to commercial regulations with foreign nations, was reconsidered.

The resolution was then amended by striking out "five thousand" and inserting "two thousand," and was finally passed.

PUBLICATION OF DEBATES.

The Senate proceeded to consider the following resolution, submitted by Mr. SEWARD on the 7th instant:

"Resolved, That the Secretary be authorized to procure the publication in the National Intelligencer of so much of the debates in the Senate during the last session of Congress as has not been already published in that paper, and to pay for such publication and also for the publication of speeches at that session already made in the Intelligencer, the sum of four dollars per column."

Mr. CHASE. I hardly suppose that the Senate feels inclined to debate that resolution at this time, and for the purpose of testing the sense in regard to it, I move that it lie upon the table.

Mr. BRODHEAD. I will inquire from the Senator from New York whether he intends to extend the operation of the resolution back to the first session of the last Congress or to confine it to the last session. If it is confined to the last session I will vote for it.

Mr. SEWARD.
Congress.

The last session of the last

Mr. BRODHEAD. I ask that it may be so modified.

Mr. SEWARD. Then I will insert the words "of the last" before "Congress."

Mr. CHASE asked for the yeas and nays, but they were not ordered.

The question was then taken on the motion to lay the resolution on the table, and there were— ayes 12, noes 13; no quorum voting.

The PRESIDENT instructed the Sergeant-atArms to invite in absent Senators.

The question was again taken, and resultedayes 9, noes 19; still no quorum voting. Subsequently the vote was again taken, and it resulted-ayes 16, noes 16.

So the motion was not agreed to.

Mr. CHASE. I think it very desirable that the Senate and the country should understand something of the nature and history of this system of paid reporting before voting upon this resolution. It is with very great reluctance that I offer any remarks at this period of the session; and nothing but a sense of duty would constrain me to do it. I have, however, looked into this history, and I feel bound to vindicate before the Senate and the country the vote which I shall give against the resolution of the Senator from New York, [Mr. SEWARD.]

It is now some five years since the practice of reporting in the Union and Intelligencer commenced. It has cost, for the National Intelligencer, $30,428 54, and for the Union $49,123 18. It originated in a resolution adopted on the 11th of August, 1848. At that time, as is well known, the public printing was disposed of by contract. The contractors were not the publishers of either of the party papers at the seat of Government. They were not, I believe, connected with the political press in any form. It so happened that, pal political parties were not very well supported from some cause, the organs of the two princiby subscriptions; and it was, doubtless, a principal object of that resolution to supply the want of popular support by governmental patronage. It provided for the printing of the proceedings and debates of the Senate alone in the Intelligencer and Union, at the rate of seven dollars and fifty cents per column. It did not prescribe the quantity of matter which a column should contain. It generously left that to the discretion of the publishers of Mr.SOULE submitted the following resolutions; the papers. The only duty devolved upon the

The resolution was considered by unanimous consent and agreed to.

Subsequently a communication was received from the Secretary of the Treasury, transmitting Mr. WALKER's resolution to change the hour of the report; which was ordered to lie on the table meeting was considered and rejected.

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON FRAUDS.

Mr. HOUSTON's motion to print ten thousand

and be printed.

MEXICAN CLAIMS.

32D CONG....2d Sess.

Secretary of the Senate was to ascertain the number of columns, long or short, wide or narrow, and to pay according to the number, at the rate of seven dollars and fifty cents per column.

This state of things continued until the commencement of the first session of the last Congress. At that time the publishers of the Intelligencer notified the Senate that they found the contract burdensome, and asked to be relieved from it. The ground of this step was understood to be that the publication of the debates of the Senate in full, and the abstract which it was necessary to give of the debates of the House, so incumbered their columns as to injure the circulation of their daily paper. It was a voluntary act upon their part. It was not called for by any action of the Senate. It was dictated by considerations of private interest. The paper was thereby left free to advocate the doctrines of the party to which the editors belonged, and to publish such matter, and such matter only, as they thought calculated to promote the interests of that party. Nobody could complain of that. It was all right and proper. The Senate acquiesced at once, and relieved the publishers from their contract.

At the last session of Congress both Houses elected the publisher of the Union printer to Congress, and fixed the rates of compensation. These rates, in my judgment, were not merely sufficient, but very liberal, not to say extravagant. I do not doubt that, with ordinary economy, under these rates, the publishers of the Union can make not simply ordinary profits, but an ample estate out of the public printing. I believe this opinion can be sustained by the judgments of practical printers. Thus, sir, stands the case at this moment. The publishers of the Intelligencer have voluntarily declined to continue reporting under the contract, and the publisher of the Union has obtained the public printing; and therefore the whole reason which originally induced the Senate to contract for the printing of the debates in the two papers, has entirely ceased. There is now no argument, either of a party or of a public nature, known to me, which will at all justify the continued printing of the debates in full in either of these papers. And it should be remembered that the contract was in terms a temporary one. The resolution which authorized at, expressly declared that it was to continue only "until otherwise ordered by the Senate."

[blocks in formation]

residue of the edition may be distributed free through the mails. No such advantage is enjoyed by any other paper in the country. It is a great advantage. The privilege of a free receipt in any section of the country however remote, is an inducement to subscription for the Globe, which must be decisive with every person who takes a paper for the sake of information in respect to Congressional proceedings. No man will take the Intelligencer or the Union to learn what is done in Congress, and pay postage when he can get the full reports of the Globe without paying postage. If the resolution of the Senator from New York should be adopted, will not impartiality require that the privilege of free circulation be given to both these papers?

Mr. President, I am not one of those who object to sustaining a party press by giving it the public printing, in the ordinary legitimate course of business. Those who represent the popular majority have a clear right to prefer in public employment

it is an abuse of power to promote party or personal objects at the expense of the public interest. Senators and Representatives are trustees for the country. We have no right to give extra prices to political friends rather than legitimate prices to political opponents. We are bound to regard sacredly the public interest; and in the disbursement of public money intrusted to our charge, to observe economy. I have shown beyond all controversy, I think, that no good reason of a party or public nature exists for the publication of Congressional proceedings and debates in the Union even-much less can any such reason be given for their publication in the Intelligencer. So far am I from being willing to extend the system, and now, after having substituted the Globe for the Intelligencer, under the circumstances I have described, to renew the employment of the latter, and thus pension a third paper upon the Treasury, and pave the way for the introduction of a third corps of reporters, that I would discontinue the employment of the Union. For one, indeed, I am ready to say that I would discontinue the system of paid reporting altogether, and leave the whole business to private enterprise. I have no doubt it would be a very sufficient and adequate substitute.

by Blair & Rives, and to the Intelligencer. The Register of Debates, published by Gales & Seaton, had, I believe, a very limited patronage by Congress; but the commencement of which has grown into a wasteful and extravagant system may be found, I think, in an order of the Senate passed in 1846, authorizing each Senator to subscribe for twelve copies of the Congressional Globe, at six dollars for the long session, and three dollars for the short session. This action of the Senate was followed the next year by an order of the House authorizing each of its members to subscribe for the same number of copies, and on the same condition. Three years later, in 1850, another order was passed by the House, authorizing each member to subscribe for twelve additional copies. This was before the passage of the Senate resolution of the last session, authorizing the publication of the debates in the Globe, at the rate of seven dollars and fifty cents per column. Let us see what was the amount of encouragement thus extended to the reporting and printing of Congres-presses or persons of like political opinions. But sional doings and debates. Sixty-two members of the Senate received twelve copies each, which makes seven hundred and forty-four copies; and two hundred and thirty-three members of the House received twenty-four copies each, making five thousand five hundred and ninety-two copies. The subscription of both Houses, therefore, amounted to six thousand three hundred and thirty-six. Congress took six thousand three hundred and thirty-six copies of this publication. This was equivalent to a pretty large list of cash paying subscribers, and could hardly fail to make the publication profitable. Now, sir, if the worthy publisher of the Globe should think fit to discontinue it, (which I certainly do not desire,) does any man, can any man doubt that this public subscription, together with the certainty of private patronage, would induce competent publishers to undertake a similar work, and report the whole proceedings and debates as fully as they are reported now? And yet, as I have already stated, we are paying the publisher of the Globe, under the resolution of the Senator from New Hampshire, seven dollars and fifty cents per column for preparing the very work for which the subscription is made. The subscription amounts to $38,016 for the long session, and $19,008 for the short session. The amount paid under the resolution of the Senator from New Hampshire, since its adoption on the 29th January, 1852, is $23,433 78-say about $17,000 for the long, and "about $7,000 for the short session. This is not all, for the House of Representatives, following the example of the Senate, has directed its proceedings also to be published in the Globe, at the same rate of seven dollars and fifty cents per column. I find upon reference to the appropriation act of August, 1852, that the sum of $21,000 was then appropriated to pay for reporting the proceedings of the House in that paper, and the further sum of $649 50 to a balance, for reporting and publishing during the preceding Congress. I also find in the deficiency act of the last session a further appropriation of $9,375 to pay for like services during that session. These, Mr. President, are considerable payments. This business of reporting even in a single paper is very costly. I am by no means certain that the practice improves the character of the debates. I do not know that it adds anything to the consid-lication from the Union and the Globe? What juseration of the Senate or the House with the country. I do not believe it does either. I think it a bad system. It makes it the duty of the reporter to set down every word uttered, no matter how trivial, how unimportant, or how ill-considered. And now I ask the attention of the Senate and It sends at vast expense much that is valuable, I hope my statement will attract the attention of indeed, but much also that is worthless, and not the country also-to the expense of this printing a little that is worse than worthless, all over the our proceedings. Before the contract with the country through these hired agencies. But, sir, Intelligencer and the Union the printing of the de- if the system were good in itself, why employ bates of Congress was a private enterprise. Pub- more than one paper? Does not one cost enough? lic patronage in the shape of large payments for Is it not enough to pay some $38,000 in the way reporting and publishing was not considered ne- of subscriptions, and about the same sum for recessary to secure sufficient publicity for Congres-porting and publishing for each proportionably for sional proceedings. The prospect of additional the short sessions? This looks a good deal like circulation was a sufficient stimulus to induce the paying for publishing a book, and then buying publication of very full accounts of what was done, the greater part of the edition. Is it worth while and of all the speeches of the members of either to pay more than one publisher? House, which the country desired to read. I refer those who would inform themselves on this subject to Niles's Register, to the Globe as published

But let me proceed with this history. Soon after the printing of the proceedings and debates had been discontinued in the Intelligencer, a resolution was submitted by the Senator from New Hampshire, [Mr. NORRIS,] requiring the Secretary of the Senate to audit and settle the accounts of John C. Rives, the publisher of the Daily Globe, for printing the debates and proceedings, allowing him the same compensation as that paid to the publishers of the Union-namely, seven dollars and fifty cents per column. That resolution passed the Senate; and then we had, as before, two papers in the city printing our proceedings and debates, and at the same expense.

Now, sir, is there any reason which will justify the Senate in employing and paying these two sets of publishers and reports to do the same work? I can see none, even of a party character, so far as the Union is concerned. That paper, as I have shown, is amply provided for by the public printing. Still less can I see any so far as the Intelligencer is concerned, for that paper, for the very purpose of being left at larger liberty to promote party objects, and consult the taste of its readers, declined the contract.

In respect to the Globe we have gone even beyond paying for publishing and buying a large part of the edition. We have provided that the

It

The resolution under consideration proposes to hire the publication of the debates and proceedings of this special session and the last session of the last Congress in the National Intelligencer. These debates and proceedings have already been published in two papers at large. All the papers in the country have laid before their readers such accounts of them as their conductors thought sufficient. The Intelligencer itself has done so. has made its own selection. It has published such speeches as its able and accomplished editors had thought fit to publish. It has not excluded altogether the speeches of political adversaries. It has published such of these as its editors regarded as having enough of intrinsic merit to warrant their publication. Its course in this respect has been such as the established character of the paper a proper regard for fairness required. It has fulfilled its whole duty in this respect. It has done all that could be reasonably asked of it. Why ask it to do any more? Why employ it to do any more? What is the object of this proposed repub

and

tifying, what plausible reason even, can be assigned for the large expenditure of public money which it will necessitate? A single reason only has been suggested. It has been said that the proposed republication in the Intelligencer will give wider publicity to the proceedings of Congress. Under the circumstances, this is hardly more than suggesting that a little additional circulation may in this way be obtained for a few speeches which had not merit enough to induce voluntary republication.

Mr. SEWARD. If the Senator will give way for a moment, I can perhaps save him the necessity of continuing his remarks.

Mr. CHASE. I prefer to go through with what I have to say. I cannot think, Mr. President, that the argument I have just referred to has any real weight with Senators. What, then, is the object? I hear it said that the proposed republication will not be profitable to the Intelligencer. The amount to be paid under the resolution

« PoprzedniaDalej »