32D CONG.....2D SESS. Delay of Public Business-Mr. Houston, of Alabama. contained in a satisfactory manner without the necessary public documents. I made that report. If the honorable gentleman had been disposed to accuse me of delinquency, then would have been the time for him to have done it; and it does seem to me as singular that he has postponed the performance of such a task until the close of the Congress, when we are within a few days of separating. If the gentleman will take the trouble to institute an examination, he will find that the Committee on Ways and Means, at the last session, reported the appropriation bills within the usual time, notwihtstanding the difficulties and delays to which I have already called the attention of this committee. The fortification bill was reported as late as July or August. During this session the public printing has been more promptly executed, and the Committee on Ways and Means have, consequently, had better facilities for the investigation of the subjects which have been committed to their charge. Hence, not only the four bills required by the rules to be reported within the first thirty days, but every one for which estimates had been submitted, were reported within that time. The estimates for the Post Office appropriation bill, as well as those for the ocean mail steam service, were not submitted to Congress until late in January, and within a few days after those estimates were sent to the House of Representatives, the Committee on Ways and Means reported those bills. The question then presents itself, if the bills were thus reported, why were they not acted upon? That brings up the whole difficulty-that is the matter of controversy which has been occupying the attention of the House for the last day or two. Early in March a special order was made, and, with the exception of a few days, special orders were continued, for a portion of the day from that time until about the close of the session. The homestead bill became the special order of the day on the 2d of March, and it was continued until the 12th of May, at which time it passed this House. I do not mean to say that the merits of the bill itself were discussed every day, but that most of the time that measure was ostensibly under consideration. On the 24th of May, Congress made another special order, appropriating the morning hour to the reception of reports from committees, to the exclusion of all other business. Under that special order the morning hour was mostly occupied for the residue of the session, and not only the morning hour was thus employed, but occasionally bills coming before the House under that order would occupy the whole day. HO. OF REPS. bill, and if any solitary speaker touched a clause in it I am not aware of it. Mr. STEPHENS. I spoke of the resolution introduced to-day which was to stop debate in one hour. I did not say that the gentleman from Alabama moved it, but I say that he voted for it and the House sustained it. Mr. HOUSTON. The gentleman understands me and I do him. If his remark is worth anything, it will convey to the House and the country the idea, that there was only one hour's debate allowed on this bill, when the fact is, the bill occupied all day yesterday, except some business in the morning. The gentleman made a speech upon it, and had an opportunity to discuss its features and provisions. Did he propose to ascertain the propriety of appropriating the millions" of which he speaks? Did he touch the question of these millions at all? Did he propose to call the attention and consideration of the House to any provision of the bill? He did not. Then why should he complain? I did not intend to dispute with the gentleman as to who offered the resolution closing debate I was not attempting to play upon words. I speak of the resolution offered by the gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. JONES] as a movement of the House, and say that the gentleman is mistaken in his understanding of the facts. It is a mistake to say that debate was stopped on this bill in one hour. There were several hours allowed; and if gentlemen have shown a disposition to debate anything and everything except the bill, then debate should be closed. But the gentleman says I asked that the first reading should be dispensed with. Does he not know that such is the usual practice with appropriation bills? When did an appropriation bill come up in Committee of the Whole that the first reading was not dispensed with by unanimous consent, and its second reading proceeded with for amendments? the House under one of its rules, which authorized Mr. HOUSTON. Certainly. Mr. STEPHENS. I was not speaking yesterday particularly of the appropriation bills. I The question may be asked, why the homestead was speaking of the vast accumulation of busibill was so long under discussion, and especially ness upon the Speaker's table, which was blockwhen the merits of the proposition were seldom ing up everything, and which we all understand. examined in the course of debate? If that ques- But the gentleman speaks particularly of the aption be asked of me, I will turn the inquirer over propriation bills. I think he will find himself in to the gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. STEPHENS,] an error in regard to the statement he has made. who (as he will remember) voted against and op- It has been usual for those bills to pass the last posed closing that debate, and thereby prevented day of the session, I grant that; but it has not the House from having an early vote upon the bill been usual that they should be so long delayed in and proposed amendments. I thought at the time, this House. They have usually passed this and the gentleman himself seems to think now, House at an early stage of the session, gone to judging from the course of remark in which he the Senate, come back, and remained over for on yesterday indulged, that much the largest por- amendment. It is usual, and it is not improper, tion of that discussion was irrelevant, and there- as the gentleman stated this morning, that they fore useless for any legislative purpose. Upon the should pass the last days of the session, but they occasion when an effort was made to close debate ought to have been discussed in this House before on that bill, so late as the 20th of April, the gen- and investigated. We are within a few days of the tleman voted against it-thereby aiding in a de- adjournment, and the civil and diplomatic bill is to feat of a proposition looking to the dispatch of be forced upon us. A resolution was passed this business. The gentleman interrupts me now, and morning to close debate in one hour upon a bill says it was a very good discussion, and that he appropriating millions of dollars. Two months did not vote to stop it at last. Let that be so; I of the session gone, and there has been no invespropose to show that he has generally been with tigation of the bill, which is not even read by secthose who have opposed efforts to close debate, tions at the Clerk's desk. The chairman of the and in that way has himself been instrumental in Committee on Ways and Means asked to take it the delay and obstruction of business. I am in up without a first reading, and voted for a propfavor of free and full debates. I like to hear proposition to close debate upon it in one hour. That ositions connected with our duties here thoroughly is his system of legislation, of which I complain. investigated, but I have generally been for closing Mr. HOUSTON. The gentleman is mistaken the debate when it wandered from the issues legit- in his facts again. I did not propose to close deimately arising from the proposition under consid- bate in one hour. eration. My recollection is that the gentleman has usually pursued a different course. Aside from the special orders to which I have already referred, there were various questions connected with the public printing which came before Mr. STEPHENS. I do not say the gentleman did. I say the House did. Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. I proposed the resolution to close this debate. There were some two or three hours yesterday consumed upon this Mr. STEPHENS. I dislike to interrupt the gentleman, but I never knew the first reading dispensed with. I recollect very well in the last Congress that the honorable gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. BURT] held that it was out of order to make such a motion, and the whole bill was read through in the House. Mr. HOUSTON. I will not speak of the last Congress. I was not here. The gentleman from Georgia has certainly paid but little attention, in Committee of the Whole, to the appropriation I assure him that so far as I am concerned, I have taken up no appropriation bill since I have been a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, in which we have not, by unanimous consent, dispensed with the first reading. This, however, is an unimportant matter, and I would not have noticed it but for the fact that the gentleman alluded to it as if it were a new thing under the sun, and for the purpose of creating the impression that I am asking the House to do an unusual thing in the progress and dispatch of the public business. But the gentleman says that the appropriation bills have usually passed before this time. In that he is also mistaken. I may not know what he means by "usually." I am at a loss to know whether he intends to apply it to the last Congress, to the Congress before that, or to all preceding Congresses. I have not had an opportunity of examining very carefully upon that point; but I know that at this period of the last Congress, the bills were not so far advanced as they are now, and at the Thirtieth Congress they were but little if any in advance of those bills at a corresponding period of this. It is true that some of the bills that are now unacted upon by the House, were in that Congress disposed of earlier in the session than this; but some of the bills that have been acted upon by the House at this session were unacted upon at the same period of that Congress. It is therefore difficult to say what is usual in regard to the time at which the appropriation bills pass the House. The gentleman says "everything is pell-mell;" that there is great confusion; that the Speaker fails to do his duty; there is a want of confidence in the heads of committees; the organization of the House is defective; and he gives these things as the cause of the obstruction of business in the House. Mr. Chairman, I would like any gentleman to tell me how the Speaker, or any committee or member of the House, could have cleared the Speaker's table? 32D CONG.....2D SESS. Delay of Public Business—Mr. Houston, of Alabama. Was it possible? Is it possible now? If so, point out the course. Could it have been done in any other way than by the coöperation of a majority of the members of this body? Sir, the responsibility is upon that majority who have cast the votes, and not upon the Speaker, or upon any particular committee or member. My friend from Georgia understands this as well as any one else, and his failure to present it constitutes my main objection to the course of remark in which he has indulged. I think he has failed to present a full statement of our condition, and the causes which led to it. If he had felt it his duty to present more fully the working of our rules, as well as the responsibility of the Presiding Officer, the heads of committees, and the members constituting the House, showing the responsibilty of each, I would have been content to let it pass without comment or reply. I feel that he has not done that; hence I have to commit this trespass upon the time and patience of the House. The gentleman said the chairmen of the committees ought to have influence enough to get the business before the House. Sir, the appropriation bills are all before the House, and were reported in due time; no one questions that. My own duty, as well as that of the committee over which I have the honor to preside, has been punctually discharged, as well as I or the committee could perform it. The Committee on Ways and Means have gone through a vast deal of labor and investigation in preparing its bills for the action of the House. The bills now upon the Speaker's table are not measures which have proceeded from that committee. They are not bills over which I or that committee have control beyond that which may be exercised by other members; and the Speaker's table cannot be cleared, unless a majority determine that it shall be done, by proceeding in order. If a majority of the House think proper to go to that business, they can do so each day after the morning hour; and if that majority decide to transact other business, with them rests the responsibility, and it is idle to attempt to charge it upon the Speaker, or upon the committees, or individual members. Mr. Chairman, there are other causes which operate to obstruct and defeat legislation beside those to which allusion has been made. It is not always that even a majority of those who may be present are able to dispatch business. We very frequently find ourselves without a quorum, and have to resort to calls of the House for the purpose of securing the attendance of the number necessary to transact business. And in this connection, I propose to call the attention of gentlemen to a fact, which not only illustrates the view I am endeavoring to present, but also furnishes a very strong commentary which may be useful to my friend from Georgia. The gentleman from Georgia, on yesterday read some of us a lecture for not discharging our duty, and afterwards, while we were endeavoring to transact business, he absented himself, so that when the committee rose, we found ourselves in the House without a quorum, and consequently unable to pass the Post Office appropriation bill, in part for want of the attendance of that gentleman. He lectures us, and then retires, leaving the House without a quorum, and rendering it unable to take a single step in legislation. Nor is this all. Upon reference to the Journal of yesterday, it will be found that we were occupied for three quarters of an hour, probably longer, in the morning in calling the House, endeavoring to get a quorum. Was the honorable gentleman from Georgia at his post? Where was he? Where was he in the evening? I was here, endeavoring to act upon the measures before us; my friend was not; and although my efforts may be unavailing, and have been too much so to secure the dispatch of business as I desired, yet I am generally here when the House is in session, ready to do what little I can; and if we could only secure the attendance of the gentleman from Georgia, with his ability and his disposition to expedite business; if he would fully act out what we have a right to infer from his remarks, I flatter myself that we should be able to clear the Speaker's table before the end of the session, and accomplish for the good of the country much other necessary legislation. Let us in future, then, have no occasion for a call of the House. Let us obviate the necessity of such a pro HO. OF REPS. ceeding and the consequent delay of business, by bers to do the same thing? There are various Mr. Chairman, in my opinion another great cause of the delay of business is what the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. NABERS] very properly calls Buncombe speeches," presidential harangues-party speeches-such debate as was had upon the homestead bill, (except a few of the speeches on that bill,) which the gentleman now says was a very proper one. It was eminently proper, in the estimation of the gentleman, to consume time upon that measure in debating whether General Scott was in the keeping of Seward, or the Democratic aspirants were true to their constitutional duties! I understand the gentleman as calling that a proper discussion upon a bill proposing to give "land to the landless," as some of the friends of the homestead bill speak of it. Suppose General Scott was under the influence of Seward, was that any reason why you should or should not give the poor man a piece of land? And yet the gentleman maintains that such was a proper and desirable debate, and that it ought not to have been arrested. Sir, I have made no speech wandering from the subject under consideration, further than may have resulted from my want of ability to confine myself within the proper scope. I have made no presidential speeches during this Congress. The House will sustain me in that asser tion. A MEMBER. How will you apply your present speech to the subject under consideration? Mr. HOUSTON. Sir, I, together with other members, have been assailed as being responsible for the accumulation of bills on the Speaker's table, and I am endeavoring to show that the charge is not well founded. I presume that under these circumstances I will be excused for attempting to set the facts truly before the country. I am presenting facts which, in my judgment, conclusively show that the Committee on Ways and Means have at least labored faithfully in the discharge of its duties. But the gentleman from Georgia says that one reason the business has not been advanced is, that there has been a want of influence in the heads of committees. I believe that is the substance of his remarks. Well, sir, it may be true that they are wanting in influence; but I wish to prove to him that he mistakes the House and mistakes himself. He will recollect that he objected during the last session to my reporting from the Committee on Ways and Means the fortification bill, and the objection rendered it impossible for me to bring the bill before the House. I had a conversation with him upon the subject at the time, and I suppose he will say now, what he frankly said then, that he made that objection because he did not want that bill to pass. Am I right? Mr. STEPHENS. Yes, sir. Mr. HOUSTON. Then does not that furnish an argument against his statement? He objected because of his opposition to the bill, and not because he had objection to me. His objection was founded upon principle. He thought the country needed no more fortifications, and his opposition arising from principle, I hardly suppose he would have surrendered or relaxed it for any one. Another member objects, upon principle, to some other bill, and so on until you pass over the entire catalogue of members-all upon principle, and of course not to be yielded up until their judgments are convinced of the utility and propriety of the bill objected to. The purpose of the objection was to defeat the bill, and would not be withdrawn until the opposition to the measure, in the mind of the member objecting, should have been overcome. Now, if the gentleman will pursue that course, why will he not allow other mem Mr. HOUSTON. Well, I suppose the latter part of July is in the month of July, as well as the early part. Mr. STEPHENS. 1 do not wish to get into a discussion with the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means as to his efficiency in discharging his duties. That was not my object. Nor did I design especially to arraign him or the head of any other committee before the House. But the gentleman seems to be going into a defense of himself personally. Well, if he wishes to do that, I will say, that if the Committee on Ways and Means intended to report a fortification bill last session, it was their duty to have reported it long before they did. When they brought forward the measure, out of order, and at the heel of the session, I did avail myself of my right to defeat it in that way. Mr. HOUSTON. Then the gentleman from Georgia will certainly not complain that other members avail themselves of the same right that he exercised on that occasion, and object to clearing the Speaker's table, or doing any other legislation out of order, if by so doing they can defeat a bill to which they are opposed. Mr. STEPHENS. Of course I do not. Mr. HOUSTON. That is one reason why business is delayed, and such action on his part does not seem to be consistent with his complaints of the tardiness of legislation. It is certainly not very proper in him to complain of the delay in reporting a measure, while he, in the exercise of a right conferred upon him by the rules of the House, interposed obstacles to prevent the bill being reported at an earlier day. Mr. McLANAHAN. I have a word of personal explanation which I desire to make. Yesterday, during the debate in this committee, entertaining proper respect for myself, and I am sure with proper courtesy towards the gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. STEPHENS,] I rose for the purpose of asking a question of him during the time he was addressing the committee. In justice to my. self I must state, that when I rose to ask that question I had no intention of exciting any ill feeling upon the part of the gentleman from Georgia, nor can I believe he so understood me. I rose to ask a question which I supposed, considering the tenor of the remarks he was making, he might properly undertake to answer; but to my surprise the gentleman saw fit to make a personal allusion to myself, which I see reported in the Republic. The only objection I have to that report is the manner in which it stands before the country. The gentleman has just stated that he meant no disre spect to the heads of any of the committees of this House, and I am happy to hear him make that statement. But I will read that portion of the report to which I allude: "Mr MCLANAHAN inquired how a chairman of a committee could make a report unless under the rules. The Committee on the Judiciary had not been called. "Mr. STEPHENS replied, that if the chairmen of committees had the confidence of the House, they could make their reports. "Mr. McLANAHAN said it was to be regretted the heads of committees could not command that confidence. Let the gentleman point them out. "Mr. STEPHENS replied, that perhaps he might begin at a point which would not be agreeable to the gentleman. He further argued that the neglect of business was owing to the members, and not to the rules." I remember then to have remarked to the gentleman from Georgia, after he uttered the first sentence in the last paragraph, that I did not interpose any objection to a full and free expression of his opinions upon that subject. The gen tleman from Georgia then said that he was replying to the gentleman from North Carolina, [Mr. VENABLE.] I rose simply for the purpose of saying the report in the Republic was not correct, and having made that statement, I have nothing further to say on the subject. 32D CONG....2D SESS. Mr. HOUSTON. I shall not occupy the time of the committee much longer. I wish, however, to say a word or two in relation to another point which has been presented in the course of this debate. The gentleman from Georgia says he objected to my reporting the fortification bill out of order; will he allow me to tell him that it never was in order, after a very early period of the session-probably March or April-for the Committee on Ways and Means to report at all? Mr. STEPHENS. The gentleman ought to have reported it long before that. Reciprocal Trade-Mr. Tuck. not, however. I do not mean to charge a corrupt HO. OF REPS. honorable friend from Georgia, that while I entertain not in the slightest degree a feeling of unkindness growing out of his strictures, (which I regarded at the time as not entirely necessary to the business then before us,) yet I think he placed me, as well as the Speaker and other members, in a position which was somewhat unfair. I do not suppose that he so intended, but such was the effect of his remarks. Had he made what I deemed a proper statement of the facts of the case, I should have refrained from saying anything upon the subject. I am willing to share, with other gentlemen, in whatever of censure may be due to the action or inaction of this body; but I am unwilling to have the sins of other men (if sins they be) charged exclusively to my account; I fear I shall have quite enough to do in answering for those for which I am properly responsible. Each gentleman should meet his own responsibilities. I am ready to bear those which legiti assume those which should justly rest upon any other gentleman, or upon this House as a body." Again: some very intelligent and experienced members think that the appropriation bills should not pass until the close of the session, as was today avowed by the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. BAYLY.] Estimates are coming in continually. This day I have received estimates of appropria-mately fall to my lot, but am entirely unwilling to tions for the bill now under consideration; and if the objects for which these appropriations are sought be proper and worthy, they should be incorporated in the bills. Mr. HOUSTON. In the opinion, then, of the gentleman, I ought to have reported it before the estimates and explanatory documents were printed, and before the committee could know what the Government required for this branch of the service. If my honorable friend can report bills upon what he deems a proper sense of duty, before he has the necessary data furnished by the proper officers of the Government, I yield to him. I confess I cannot. The gentleman makes an argument founded upon the hypothesis that members vote upon public measures in accordance with their likes or dislikes to the committee or member reporting the bill. Can he be serious in such an argument? If that position be true, I regret it, for it shows a great want of a proper appreciation of the duties and responsibilities of sworn representing atives of the people. Under any circumstances, it is not a statement which I should expect a member of this body to make. I take it, there can be no one who would so far stultify himself as to vote for or against a measure, because he might entertain prejudices for or against the member having it in charge. I must think that such an argument does the members of the House, as well as the gentleman himself, great injustice. Mr. Chairman, as our country expands and enlarges, and our population increases, private interests will multiply in number and expand in magnitude, and as they so multiply you will find greater numbers of them submitted for the legislative action of the Government; and as this accumulation takes place, the various and important private claims will delay, and sometimes defeat public measures. It is inevitable; and no Speaker, whatever might be his talents as a statesman, or his skill as a parliamentarian, can prevent it. Should the Speaker propose to present to the House the bills on his table when not in order, the mere objection of any one member could defeat his proposal; and suppose you were legitimately at the table, and a majority of the House determine that they will go to some other business, could the Speaker, by the exercise of his authority, prevent that majority from carrying their determination into effect? Should the Presiding Officer of this body desire to go to the table and a majority of the members feel opposed to his views, could he compel them to conform to his wish? I can see no force, no propriety, no justice in the position of the gentleman. There are now on the Speaker's table bills combining interests, which together would ordinarily control the vote of this House. I, of course, will not be understood as meaning personal interests of the members. There are the alternate section railroad bills, there are many private bills, together with the French spoliation bill; and when the friends of these various measures, having a common interest, leading them all to the same point, combine, they can go to the business on the Speaker's table, and can, by a vote, carry the House in opposition to the wishes of any committee. And one great cause of the delay in the transaction of business is because all are animated with a desire to get at the bills in which their constituents are so deeply interested; members who are anxious to get at the alternate section land bills, at the French spoliation bill, together wih the private bills in which the constituents of so many are interested. Sir, I desire that the House should understand the embarrassments under which I have, to a large extent, labored. I cannot think gentlemen are aware of the extent to which these things are carried. Some gentlemen who have charge of, or feel interested in bills upon the Speaker's table, have told me frankly that the appropriation bills could not be passed through the House until the table should be cleared, thus setting up those private bills to deley others. It may be right to do so. I think Again: every member who has a bill in which his constituents are immediately interested, is desirous of passing it; and for the purpose of obtain action upon it, they will use every proper effort. They will vote to postpone all other bills to get at those in which their constituents have a more immediate interest. Gentlemen have frequently said to me that they regretted to vote against my efforts to get up the appropriation bills, but they felt bound to get theirs passed if they could; and if they could only get some particular bill through, they would vote with me the remainder of the session whenever I attempted to press forward the general measures. I have had such statements made to me by many members during this session. RECIPROCAL TRADE. SPEECH OF HON. AMOS TUCK, IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, On the bill" establishing Reciprocal Trade with the Mr. TUCK said: Mr. SPEAKER: I had more than one reason to be interested in the remarks of the gentleman from Maine, [Mr. FULLER.] I wished to see how well, and in what manner, a free-trade Democrat would argue the question of restriction; and I must conBut there is still another argument with which fess, though I do not sympathize with the gentleI am frequently met. When I have been urging man in the conclusions to which he has arrived, that gentlemen to assist me in taking up the appropria- he has discussed the question quite ably, considtion bills, they have told me not to be uneasy;ering the materials from which his argument has that those bills would be sure to pass; that they been constructed. I wanted to see in what mannever pass until within the few last days of the ner a Representative from Maine, with such a long session; that it has invariably been so. They line of border on the neighboring British Provask if I have ever known an appropriation bill inces, and a gentleman with all the interests imwhich really should pass fail for want of time; pressed upon his mind which necessarily must be, that such measures are bound to pass; that every would attempt to convince this House that restricmember wishes and intends that they shall; but tion was for the benefit of the country. That is that they wish to get bills through for this, that, the proposition which he has been attempting to or the other purpose. Such reasoning and feel- establish. ings as these operate to retard the progress of business, and especially to prevent early action upon the appropriation bills. I regret, Mr. Chairman, that I have had occasion to occupy any of the time of the House upon a subject which is not particularly pleasant to me, is not pertinent to business, and which, therefore, cannot be very interesting to the members of this body. But having been arraigned, in common with the heads of the other committees, I felt it my duty to say this much in reply. I admit that if I could have had things as I desired them, business would have been in advance of where it is now; but I deny that the appropriation bills have heretofore, for the last fifty years, become laws until near the close of the session, as is the case now. The gentleman says that great changes have come upon the country. Sir, changes have been made everywhere and in almost everything. Changes have been made in this House. Mr. Calhoun is not here, Mr. Webster is not here, Mr. Clay is not here, Silas Wright is not here, John Forsyth, the former representative of the gentleman's present district, is not here; hundreds of other good and great men, who in time past honored and adorned this House by their presence, are not here. Truly, Mr. Chairman, changes have taken place. In that the gentleman and myself are perfectly agreed; but, sir, changes are inevitable, and it is not for us to complain of the decrees of fate, or of evils over which we have no control. We must make the best we can of our present condition; while our hopes, our aspirations, and our efforts, should be directed to the amelioration of the ills that surround us, and the removal of the obstacles that lie in the way of || our usefulness. Such is the teaching of philosophy-such the dictate of justice. I assure my Mr. FULLER, of Maine. I wish to correct the gentleman. My position was against partial legislation. I divided the proposition, and I wish the gentleman so to understand. Mr. TUCK. The House will understand both the gentleman and myself. Now, I want to give the gentleman a history of this effort for reciprocity, as I contend it is properly called, and some authorities which are arrayed against him in regard to it. The first authority in relation to the subject to which I will call the attention of the gentleman, is James K. Polk, late President of the United States. The next one, James Buchanan, who recommended reciprocity in respect to the Canadas. Mr. FULLER. And only the Canadas. Mr. TUCK. I so stated. This recommendation came to the Thirtieth Congress, was referred to the Committee on Commerce, over which the Hon. Joseph Grinnell presided, received the unanimous approbation of the committee, and a bill was reported to the House, which bill passed the House. It failed in the Senate for want of time. Mr. FULLER. It included only half of the articles embraced within this bill. Mr. TUCK. In the last Congress the subject again came up. It was referred to the Committee on Commerce, over which presided the Hon. Robert M. McLane. It received the sanction of that committee, and a bill was reported to the House. It was not acted on by the House, because of the perplexing territorial questions which we all know blocked up the ordinary course of legislation. It is now recommended again, but doubly fortified by considerations growing out of our fishery difficul ties. With this reference to the past favor which the main features of the bill have received, I beseech gentlemen on both sides of the House not to vote 32D CONG.....2D SESS. Reciprocal Trade-Mr. Tuck. by arguments applicable to the whole country, and appreciable by every friend of general development and prosperity. Hunt's Merchants' Magazine, a journal which all know stands deservedly high in every part of the country, has also argued the same question with great earnestness and ability. De Bow's Southern and Western Review, printed at New Orleans, has contained very able articles of the same tenor on this subject; and the Charleston Mercury has lately, as I ain told, promulgated similar views, and joined the general approbation in favor of reciprocal trade. With these proofs that this measure is regarded as national in its character, and as likely to be generally beneficial, I am sorry to witness the effort of the gentleman from Maine to brand it as a sectional proposition, and to prejudice the House against it by calling it a railroad and manufacturscheme. against the proposition before examining it. The only favor I ask of any gentleman on this floor is not to be misled, either by the arguments of the gentleman from Maine or any other individual, but to examine this question before he condemns it. It has been sanctioned by the authority of previous Congresses, and of men standing deservedly high in the confidence not only of their party, but the people of this country; and I only ask that it be examined before being condemned. It now comes before us with double claims to those which it has ever had heretofore, and I will tell you why: We have now the opportunity of securing reciprocal trade not only with the Canadas, but with the other British Provinces. We have also the important incentive to accept of the terms which are generously offered to us by Great Britain and her Provinces, because, by the proposed arrangement, we obtain a most desirable settlementing of the difficulties which have taken place on the fishing grounds. Our fishermen cannot go through another summer without involving themselves in serious difficulties with the people of the Provinces. I am not going to use any threatening argument, by saying that war will ensue unless the fishermen are quieted, but I believe that there is danger of bloodshed. There will be no war; for, although the sympathies of our people are as intimately connected with the fishermen as with any other class of our inhabitants, yet our people will not tolerate any war except for causes which will arouse the whole country, and the fishermen will endure as long as endurance is a virtue. The advantage in respect to the fisheries which is offered to us is this: In the convention with Great Britain in 1818, there was a provision by which we relinquished the right to fish within three miles of the shore of the British Provinces, with a few trifling exceptions. Now the mackerel fishing cannot be successfully pursued without going within three miles of the shore. At that time the mackerel fishery was not an interest which required to be considered in that convention, because mackerel were as abundant on the coast of New England as any other portion of the world. But in 1828, or 1830, mackerel began to disappear from our coast, and our fishermen followed them down to the coast of the British Provinces. They have been pursuing that trade since; but there have been difficulties attending its pursuit for the last twenty years. These difficulties have been adjusted from time to time, by the earnest endeavors of the authorities of both Governments to preserve peace, and to settle all difficulties in a spirit of liberality which has characterized both parties. It is impossible to pursue the mackerel fishery without occasionally going within three miles from the shore. Unless we have this privilege, to enjoy the shore fishery without annoyance-which we do not now have the mackerel fishery will be broken up, and that important nursery for American seamen will be destroyed. The British Government proposes to give us the privileges of the shore fishery, and also the right to cure on shore the fish caught, provided this reciprocity proposition is acceded to by our Government. The offer that is now made, comes with tenfold the encouragement, and tenfold the reason for its acceptance, which existed when the first overture received the sanction of the House of Representatives of the Thirtieth Congress, or the sanction of the Committee on Commerce of the last session. We can obtain important rights by accepting this reciprocity proposition. I believe it will accord with the judgment of each and every member of the House who will examine it. If it does not receive the support of every one who thoroughly examines it, I am confident it will be in consequence of some supposed local hardship, and not from a doubt of the general interests of the whole country. I desire to put this question on the broadest national grounds. And I wish now, for the benefit of the gentleman from Maine, and the information of the whole House, as evidence of the nationality of the proposition, to refer to a few authorities of a different character to those to which I have already called your attention. The North American Review has contained one or more articles, written with signal ability, urging this matter upon the attention of Congress, and sustaining the same I admire the gentleman's art in attempting to give it a character at the outset of his argument, which should arouse the prejudice of some parts of the country. But I condemn his object much more than I admire his skill. Let every question stand on its own merits. Let this measure stand or fall by the judgment of the representatives of the American people, without any resort to efforts of that sort to give it a bad name. it were in fact a railroad proposition, I should expect to find the gentleman from Maine advocating it. If The great thoroughfare from the city of Portland to Montreal-the Atlantic and St. Lawrence railroad-will be more benefited than any other railroad by any increase of commerce with the Provinces. If, therefore, reciprocity be a railroad scheme, the State of Maine is most interested, and the gentleman ought to advocate it, instead of attempting to defeat it. Neither is there any justice in the attempt to convince the House that it is to be mainly advantageous to manufacturers. I am sure it will benefit our manufacturers materially, because it will give us new customers, and open to those customers the way of bringing to us something with which to make their purchases. But it is no scheme to benefit manufacturers, except by the additional prosperity which it is to give to the whole community. The representatives of some of the manufacturing districts have doubts, I am sorry to say, about the scheme; yet I am confident, those doubts will be removed when they have found time to examine more carefully the bill and report under consideration. The gentleman from Maine [Mr. FULLER] has signally failed in giving any proof to this House which can satisfy them that this is a sectional measure, or that it is to be exclusively beneficial to railroads or manufactures. He has, however, demonstrated to this House the character and the sole cause of his opposition to it. The lumber interest, and the plaster of Paris interest, embrace the alpha and omega of his argument. Yes, sir, in order to maintain a monopoly of lumber in the State of Maine, in which there are not more than five hundred men interested, he would shape the legislation of the entire country, and abandon his favorite doctrines of free trade. Mr. FULLER. I would like to have the gentleman's authority for that. I say that there are more than forty thousand men interested in that trade. Mr. TUCK. If you count the day laborers, there may be thousands interested in the lumber business; but the wages of such will not be diminished or increased by the passage of this bill. If you count the holders of land only, I have good reason to say, and I challenge contradiction, that there are not more than five hundred in the whole country who are interested in the Maine lumber monopoly;-in that restriction and anti-free trade which the gentleman argues so zealously. He sees his own citizens engaged in building railroads in order to have that intercourse which is desirable between the Provinces and the sea-board; and yet he comes here and argues for the lumber interest and the $100,000 invested in plaster of Paris, against intercourse and in favor of restriction. I am not disappointed to find the gentleman arguing what he thinks to be the interests of his constituency with earnestness and zeal, although those interests are, in my opinion, adverse to the general good. But I am astonished to see that the gentleman | Ho. OF REPs. from Maine will desert his avowed principles of Democracy, as I have always understood them to be, for the sake of the plaster of Paris and the lumber. Here is an amendment which the gentleman has introduced so as to give the go-by to reciprocity, and to maintain restriction. Its object is to prevent action. I wish it to be understood distinctly, that the gentleman must know as well as others, that the only purpose which his proposition can accomplish is to defeat any reciprocity bill, and any and every settlement of the fishery troubles. His amendment has an aspect of reciprocity, but it does not mean anything, except opposition to reciprocity. Restriction for the benefit of lumber and plaster of Paris is its whole purport and object. I wish to refer, in a few words, to the amendment which my friend from Massachusetts [Mr. SABINE] proposes to offer to this bill. He had the kindness to show it to me. If I understand it correctly, it is substantially like the bill proposed by the honorable Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. DAVIS] in the Senate. The main proposition seems to be this: if Great Britain and the Provinces will give us the same rights of fishery they themselves enjoy, we will give them the right to go upon our fishing grounds, and the right to import their fish into our market. I trust that Congress will not make such an unreasonable proposition to the Provinces as this. It is a matter of surprise to me that such a thing has been seriously contemplated. What! a proposition to be made to these Provinces, that we will admit them to our fishing grounds, where we cannot catch good fares of fish ourselves, provided they will admit us to their fishing grounds, where we can catch good fares, and where we must go if we make the mackerel fishery a profitable or saving business! To admit their fish into our markets is a consideration entirely inadequate to the advantages we shall gain. I have repeatedly referred, Mr. Speaker, to the report and bill which is before this House. In relation to the report, I will relieve my own mind, by expressing the obligations which I feel as a member of this House, to the gentleman from New York, [Mr. SEYMOUR,] for the able manner in which this proposition of reciprocity and fisheries has been examined and set forth in his report. The subject is ably presented, as a national measure, and its connection with the agricultural, manufacturing, and the general interests of the country, is successfully shown by statistics, details, and conclusions, which cannot be resisted. It is only necessary to read his report in order fully to understand the general importance of the subject, and that all interests may well unite in its support. The report is a document of signal ability, and if the gentleman from New York, in retiring from Congress at the close of this session, (which I hope he will not do,) should leave no other monument, this report would be an honorable and an enduring evidence of his statesmanship, ability, and expanded views. In this connection, permit me to refer to another document on the subject under consideration, which has attracted my attention, and which I have examined to some extent with great profit and pleasure. It is a report made to the Secretary of the Treasury, by Mr. J. D. Andrews, who has given the last two or three years solely to the business of collecting statistics, and of laying them before the Treasury Department, relative to trade with the British Provinces, from the extreme northwest to the Atlantic ocean, and to facts and statistics relating to the fisheries. Mr. Andrews's last report constitutes Senate document No. 112, and is a production evincing great industry, great ability, and great success in mastering the subject committed to his investigation. The Secretary was fortunate in employing so competent a person to make these investigations, and to collect the facts set forth in this document. I have it in my hand, and I commend it to the perusal of gentlemen, assuring them that it is a production of no ordinary interest and value. The gentleman from Maine [Mr. FULLER] has stated that the bill under consideration will not secure actual reciprocity. By reading the bill its character can be correctly understood: A BILL establishing reciprocal trade with the British North 32D CONG.....2D SESS. Great Britain shall agree with the Government of the United States that the people of the United States shall enjoy unmolested, the same rights to take fish of every kind in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, on the coasts and shores of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, and Cape Breton, New Brunswick and Prince Edward's Island, and of any and all other the British possessions in North America, and in all the bays, gulfs, creeks, and waters, or places of the sea, bordering on and adjacent to the British possessions in North America, and to dress, cure, and dry the same on the coasts and shores of any part of the British possessions in North America, as are or shall, from time to time, hereafter be enjoyed by subjects of Great Britain, subject, however, to the rights of the proprietors or possessors of the ground where said fish may be dressed, cured, or dried; and whenever the Government of Great Britain shall agree with the Government of the United States that all leases of fishing rights or privileges, and lands necessary for the enjoyment of the same, made by British subjects to any of the people of the United States, shall have the same force and effect as if made to British subjects; and whenever the Government of Great Britain, with the consent of the Government of the Provinces of Canada and New Brunswick, shall agree with the Government of the United States that the people of the same, in American bottoms, and with boats, rafts, and vessels of every description, may use and navigate the river St. Lawrence, and the river St. John, in New Brunswick, from their sources to the ocean, together with all canals and waters connecting the great northern lakes with the Atlantic ocean through the river St. Lawrence, as the same now are or hereafter may be enjoyed by the subjects of Great Britain, subject only to the charges and regulations which now exist, or shall hereafter be prescribed, for the use and navigation of the same by the inhabitants of the British provinces in North America or other British subjects; and whenever the Government of New Brunswick, with the consent of the Government of Great Britain, shall abolish all export duties on fumber cut on lands within the territory of the United States, and transported down the river St. John and exported thence; and whenever the President of the United States shall issue his proclamation declaring that the articles hereinafter enumerated, being of the growth, production, or manufacture of the United States, are admitted into the British North American provinces by law free of duty;that on and after that day the like articles being of the growth, production, or manufacture of the said British North American provinces, shall be admitted into the United States free of duty, when imported directly from such provinces, so long as the said enumerated articles are admitted into such British North American provinces when imported directly from the United States free of duty, or until otherwise directed by the Government of the United States, to wit: Grains, flour, and breadstuffs of all kinds, seeds, unmanufactured hemp, unmanufactured flax and tow, animals of all kinds, undried fruits, fish of all kinds, dried, sinoked, salted, and fresh; meats, salted, smoked, and fresh; hides, sheep-pelts, wool, butter, cheese, tallow, lard, horns, manures, ores of all kinds, stone and marble in its crude or worked state, gypsum, ground or unground, ashes, Sirewood, agricultural implements, including axes; fish oil, broom-corn, bark, unwrought burr-stones, dyestuffs, rice, cotton, unmanufactured tobacco, unrefined sugar. SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That whenever the President of the United States shall issue his proclamation declaring that the Government of Great Britain has agreed with the Government of the United States that round, hewed, and sawed timber of all kinds, and all lumber of every description, the growth and production of the United States when exported directly therefrom to the British West India islands, shall, during the continuance of the reciprocal trade provided for by this act, be admitted into the ports of said islands at no higher duty than shall be imposed in such ports on similar articles when imported into said islands from the British North American provinces, that on and after that day, round, hewed, or sawed timber of all kinds, and all sawed lumber of every description, undressed and unmanufactured in any way, the growth and production of the British North American provinces, when they shall by law admit into their ports free of duty the articles named in the first section of this act as therein provided, shall be admitted into the United States, when imported directly from said provinces, free of duty, so long as similar articles, the growth and production of the United States, shall, when exported from the United States, be admitted free of duty into the ports of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or until otherwise directed by the Government of the United States; and when any duty is or shall be charged in the ports of the United Kingdom of Great Bri ain and Ireland upon such articles so as aforesaid impted all be directly from the United States, the same duty, charged upon round, hewed, or sawed timber all kinds, and all sawed lumber of every description, dressed and unmanufactured in any way, when inrted from said provinces directly into the ports of the United States. February 3, 1853. Mr. TUCK resume: Mr. Speaker, I had nearly concluded my remarks, when I was arrested by the expiration of the morning hour on yesterday. At the close of the last session of Congress, in accordance with my convictions of duty, I published a speech upon the subject of the fisheries and reciprocity with the British Provinces. In that speech I set forth at length my views upon this subject, and I do not, therefore, feel inclined to occupy the whole of the hour to which I am entitled under the rule, but knowing the feeling of the House, and their indisposition at this late period of the session to listen to any discussion at length upon any subject, I will conclude with a few additional remarks. The Homestead Bill-Mr. Adams. I have heard an objection made to this bill, reported by the Committee on Commerce, because of its supposed injurious effects upon the agricultural interests of the North and West; particularly with regard to the article of flour. Now, upon this subject I invite the attention of the House for one minute. Sir, I will state one fact, which SENATE. tleman's constituents-those lumber dealers-will be better off by the passage of this bill. And, after the lapse of a few years, when this lumber will have been cut off from the Maine lands, the gentleman's constituents will empower him, or his constituents will come here and contend as ably for reciprocity as he now does against it. It is true that this bill is not as perfect as I should like it in some particulars, and I have been almost tempted to offer an amendment to the bill providing that coal and iron castings shall be included. It would be decidedly beneficial to my constituents, and to New England generally, if such provisions were incorporated into the bill. I think will inevitably remove the objections that any of the friends of the flour interest can possibly entertain to this bill. It is supposed, that if we have reciprocal trade with the British Provinces, they will raise a surplus of wheat, and send it to the United States overland. Now, sir, is this fact covered by the statistics of the country, and from the reports of the Treasury Department? We find in the report of the Committee on Commerce, upon this matter of reciprocity, the statement that the lower colonies, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and New-position, defeat this bill, probably another Confoundland, have been among the best customers 'of American breadstuffs. The market which they have afforded is equal to that of Brazil. 'Our exports of breadstuffs to these colonies in 1852 amounted to $1,659,285, and to Brazil $1,655,558." I state the further fact, that we pay a duty upon this flour which we have exported to these Provinces, varying from twenty-five to seventy-five cents per barrel. Now I would ask gentlemen if it can possibly prejudice the interest of the wheat-growing portion of this country to have reciprocal free trade with these Provinces, when we now, in spite of the duty, export so largely to these Provinces? All fear on this subject must be removed by the statement of this one fact, that Brazil is a very important consumer of our flour, and yet we export, as I have before mentioned, more flour to these Provinces annually than we do to the whole of Brazil. The gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. CLINGMAN] has proposed an amendment to this bill, the design of which is, as I understand it, to open the coasting trade of the whole country to British competition. I do not understand the amendment exactly, but I suppose that to be the purport of his proposition. Now I would ask the gentleman from North Carolina if he would favor such a proposition as this, unless Great Britain will admit us to a free competition in her coasting trade? Mr. CLINGMAN. Such are the terms of my amendment. Mr. TUCK. The gentleman would not, and no man who sympathizes with the interests of his country, would hazard his reputation by making and supporting such a proposition here. But the gentleman has no reason to believe that England would admit us to a competition in their coasting trade on the coast of England. We have no proposition of that kind from the British Government. This matter of reciprocal trade is one thing, and the opening of the coasting trade is another. When it is necessary to consider this latter subject, let the gentleman be heard upon it; let him then bring forward his proposition and argue it with his usual ability, and let the judgment of the House be taken upon it; but I ask the gentleman not to bring it forward now. Now, I wish to say one word in relation to the fumber trade. I beg leave to differ with the gentleman from Maine in regard to the prejudicial effects which this bill may have upon the lumber interest. The lumber interests are amply provided for in this bill. How? The head waters of the river St. John are in the land belonging to Maine, and there is around those neu interest. The lumber cannot now betegedumber that river through the Provinces, without paying a duty. There is a provision in that bill that the duty shall be abolished. That is one of the advantages which this bill affords to the lumber interest; and the gentleman from Maine will observe that in the second section of the bill there are other provisions for the security of that interest, among which is one that provides that lumber shall be admitted into the ports of the West Indies duty free. Now, I contend that it is demonstrable satisfactorily to the mind of every man from every part of the country, that this bill cannot operate to their prejudice, but will be as generally useful to all interests as any bill that can be brought before the country; and take it in the long run, the gen But I wish to call the attention of the wakeful Representatives from the State of Pennsylvania, tu the fact, that if in following out the indefinite fears which haunt their imagination, they, by their op gress will not pass by without having a reciprocity adopted, including coal and iron free. If sir, this bill should now fail, and it should be my fortune again to occupy a place upon this floor, I should sustain a bill which provides for a more comprehensive reciprocity. I wish to make one remark in reference to my own views upon the subject of protection. I believe that protection is a temporary policy. I have never believed that it would be a permanent policy. But there is no need of protection between two countries lying side by side, in which the labor of one is equally expensive as the labor of the other, and in which money in one is equally abundant as in the other. There is no need of our protecting ourselves against Canada. There is no need of our protecting ourselves against any country that lies coterminous to us upon this continent. And sir, I would give my support to-day for a great system which should deserve the name of an American system of free trade in respect to countries that lie adjacent to us. But we cannot adopt that policy in reference to the countries of Europe where labor and money is cheap, and I am happy to know that there are no gentlemen in the country who argue, with any great appearance of seriousness, for such a policy. THE HOMESTEAD BILL. SPEECH OF HON. SPEPHEN ADAMS, OF MISSISSIPPI, IN THE SENATE, February 24, 1853, Against an amendment proposed by Mr. WALKER to the Pacific Railroad bili, as containing all the principles of the Homestead bill. Mr. ADAMS said: Mr. President, the amendment under consideration, proposing, as it does, a disposition of the public lands, I shall avail myself of the liberty it affords to give my views on the various propositions pending before the Senate, for the disposition of the public domain. I shall first consider the bill which has acquired the title, by common consent, of the "homestead bill;" a term which gives it a popularity throughout the land that no other could confer. Perhaps there is no name, save that of wife, children, or friends, that is hallowed by so many endearing forms a common platform on which the affections associations as that of the family homestead. It of all-the rich and the poor, the old and the young, meet as upon a level. Every Senator in this Chamber, yielding to the impulses of his own heart, will testify to the truth of the poet's decla Every cottager's heart in this broad land beats responsively to its truth; and as we all take delight in conferring benefits upon the necessitous, I feel confident that every Senator on this floor is disposed to vote for the bill when it shall be taken up, or for some proposition that will embody substantially the great object sought to be attained by it, if he can do so consistently with his duty to the Constitution and the country. I propose, sir, to enter upon a brief examination of our powers over the public domain, and our duty upon the important question of its proper disposition. I assume the position as a postulate, that the public lands have been acquired by the common blood and treasure of all the States of the |