here declared are too liberal, it must be recollected that the tendency of legislation for individual claims is constantly to enlarge the basis of right; while the effect of transferring them to another tribunal, more judicial in its character, will probably be to retain that basis essentially within the limits fixed at the moment of transfer. If, therefore, it should be supposed, or even admitted, that the principles asserted in the bill are more liberal than the present practice of Congress, it may be considered certain that, in its continued action, they would soon be surpassed in liberality." That is, if we are acting upon too liberal principles-too much upon presumption-we had better at once send out these presumptions to be the guide of others than longer to trust ourselves. Why? Because "the tendency of legislation for individual claims is constantly to enlarge the basis of right;" and we are in danger of being further from those principles which should govern prudent legislators, watchful of the interest of those whom they represent as they would be of their own, than we now are. Mr. P. said, however just this might be in point of fact, he was not yet prepared to admit it as principle of action; and, while no one would lend his support more readily to any claim that might come here sustained by proper evidence, he trusted the correctness of such a proposition might never find support in any vote of his. Speaking of the operation of the limitation acts, the committee say further: [H. OF R sumptions which this bill directs the Secretary to assume, let us consider, for a moment, what are the natural presumptions in the case. The commutation provided for by the resolution of 1783 was originally directed to be adjusted by commissioners, or other accounting officers, appointed by Congress; and it was supposed that certificates were almost universally granted in 1784. Why should it not have been so? They were ready, upon application and the production of the proper evidence; and he put it to the House, whether the provisions of that resolution, and the rights accruing under it, considering the circumstances under which it was passed, upon the application of the officers themselves, must not have been known to every officer living within the limits of the United States? Mr. P. thought it utterly incredible that it should have been otherwise. Whenever there had been any action upon the subject of pensions, in later times, what period had elapsed before that action, whether favorable or unfavorable, and almost every particular attending it, had, through one channel or another, reached the humble dwelling of every survivor of that noble band? But, upon the supposition that, from their remote situation from the accounting officers, some might, by possibility, have been precluded from obtaining their rights, an act was passed on the 27th of March, 1792, suspending the operation of the limitation acts for two years; and, under this extension, remaining claims, or such as were presented, were adjusted at the Treasury Department, by what were then termed "certificates of registered debt." Again, he inquired whether it was within the bounds of reasonable probability that any claims were held up after this period, if they were ever intended to be enforced? Sir, said Mr. P., it is to be remembered that, during all this time, it was not, as it unfortunately now is. There were hosts of living witnesses among the officers with whom the claimants served, and_the_soldiers whom they commanded. Nor is the advantage which the officer had, from his position over the private soldier, of proving every particular connected with his service, and its duration, to be overlooked. Men engaged in the same great cause, and serving in the same camp, were no strangers to each other; never, perhaps, was In the case before the House, it was so exceed-there a band bound together by such ties of ingly probable that all claims founded in right were adjusted, and so fallible and uncertain was human testimony, after a lapse of fifty years, that he had no hesitation in declaring it was his firm conviction that the former course was the proper one; and that applicants, who came in after the extension act of 1792, should always have been held to account for their delay. It was not, of course, intended to give commutation to those, or the heirs of those, who received certificates in 1784, or who have, at any time since, under any circumstances, received commutation. "Driven from the ordinary means of redress, individual claimants, from time to time, resorted to Congress for relief. At first, it may have been a matter of consideration and of serious question whether relief should be afforded after the limitation had expired, and the party was at least held to account for his delay; but in process of time, it became, as it now is, a matter of course to grant relief in every case in which the claimant brings himself, by proof, within the terms of the resolutions on which the claim is founded, and has not been already paid." Mr. P. trusted that wrong practice and precedent founded in error were not to be regarded as guides here. He solemnly believed that, if precedent and practice were to be relied upon, gentlemen might readily find justification for going almost any length in any direction. Before examining more particularly the pre affection, intimacy, and confidence. Genius, honor, and unshaken valor then went hand in hand, and were in exercise, not from low considerations of personal aggrandizement, but to vindicate a nation's rights. The links that bound men together at that day exist not now. Their intimacies and their friendship were those which, perhaps, from our very natures, can only spring up and flourish amidst the mutual dangers and privations of a camp. At the period of which he spoke, every incident of the exciting and eventful struggle through which they had just passed, must have been fresh and vivid in the recollection of all: nothing need H. OF R.] Revolutionary Claims. [FEBRUARY, 1834. then have been left to doubt, nothing to pre- | been reduced by that arrangement, and therefore sumption. But this is not all. From 1794, entitled to half-pay for life, or the commutation in down to this hour, there had been the same lieu of it." opportunity to obtain equitable rights, by application to Congress, that exists at present. With these facts before us, said Mr. P., if the natural presumption be not that all just claims have been satisfied, according to the provisions of the resolution of 1783, he confessed that the conclusions at which he had arrived were singularly erroneous. The House had nothing to do with the question of the value of the certificates; they were, without doubt, nearly valueless in the hands of a large portion of the original holders. This subject was most satisfactorily discussed in the able and elaborate reports made to both Houses at the first session of the twenty-first Congress, when the act was passed providing for the officers who were entitled to half-pay by the resolve of 1780, and for the non-commissioned officers and soldiers who enlisted for, and served to, the close of the war. The views taken in these reports were interesting and instructive upon this subject. But he was considering what was the natural presumption as to commutation rights still existing; and, if his views were in any tolerable degree correct, it was diametrically opposed to the legal presumption to be established by the passage of this bill. Sir, continued Mr. P., we are told that the evidence of records is exceedingly imperfect, and I assure the House that such is the fact to a much greater extent than I had supposed, before applying to the department for information. The muster-rolls had been almost entirely destroyed by fire, and all the records, from various casualties, were broken; but this deficiency of record evidence was, in his estimation, much more the misfortune of the Government | than of the claimants, who came here after the lapse of fifty years. But pass your presumptions, sir, said he, and you will have little occasion for evidence. It is said that the rules which are to be regarded as fixed principles by the department, provided this bill pass, are the same which the committee have adopted in the investigation of claims coming before them. If so, and they accorded with the sentiments of the House, he confessed it was a matter of very little consequence whether they were applied here or elsewhere; and he was happy that the bill had been reported, that the opinion of the House might be deliberately and understandingly expressed upon the propriety of their adoption. Sir, said Mr. P., will not their operation be that of a new law upon the subject of commutation? Look at the first presumption of the bill; it has the advantage of being plain; there is no ambiguity about it. "It being established that an officer of the continental line was in service as such on the 21st of October, 1780, and until the new arrangement of the army provided for by the resolution of that date was effected, he shall be presumed, unless it appear that he was then retained in service, to have The onus probandi was shifted; the burden of proof was not left where it was intended it should rest-with the claimant, but it was thrown upon Government. He presumed it was not expected that the Government would send agents abroad to obtain negative evidence from living witnesses. How, then, was it to be shown, in the present imperfect state of the records, that an officer was not reduced, and did voluntarily leave the service? The effect of such instructions would virtually be to give commutation to all who were in service on the 21st of October, 1780, and until the new arrangement was effected, instead of to those only who were actually reduced, as was originally contemplated. He called the attention of the House to the second presumption: "2d. A continental officer, proved to have remained in service after the arrangement of the army under said resolution of October, 1780, shall be presumed to have served to the end of the war, or to have retired entitled to half-pay for life, unless it appear that he died in the service, or resigned, or was dismissed, or voluntarily abandoned an actual command in the service of the United States." This, also, manifestly made new provision; granting commutation to those who were in service after the new arrangement in 1780, instead of to those who actually served to the close of the war; for, in the state of record evidence, as declared by the committee, how was it possible for the Government to prove, in very many instances, that the claimant, or the ancestor of the present claimant, “died in the service, or resigned, or was dismissed, or voluntarily abandoned a command in the service of the United States?" There was no possible means of doing it. Mr. P. would pursue the subject no further. If there was no fallacy in these premises, and the conclusions were legitimate, they were sufficient for his purpose. The House would not think of passing the bill in its present shape. He ought not longer to ask the attention of gentlemen, for which he was already under great obligation. Such were some of the objections to the bill that had occurred to Mr. P., and thus much he thought it his duty to say. For the committee making the report he entertained the highest respect; and he believed that he was no less disposed than they were to grant, to the uttermost farthing, all that was due to revolutionary officers or their heirs. But, said Mr. P., pass this bill, and you will do great injustice to the country; you will make a most exhausting draft upon your treasury, to answer, it may be, some equitable claims that may as well be liquidated without it; and you will, it is morally certain, be compelled, under it, to acknowledge a vast number which have no foundation in justice-no foundation anywhere, except in lost records and violent presumptions. [H. OF R. of the Secretary of the Treasury, giving his Mr. CLAY called for the reading of the report. The CHAIR decided that it was the right of a member to have any paper read when first presented to the House. Mr. CLAY said that he wished the reading, because he meant to follow it by a motion for printing an extra number of copies of the report. Mr. HARDIN said he would vote for the extra number without the reading. The CHAIR stated the grounds on which he had decided that the reading was of right, when called for by a member of the House. He said that the member from Alabama (Mr. CLAY) had a right to have the report read before he could be required to vote, and that it was not in order to move to dispense with the reading, nor in the power of the majority of the House so to direct, if persisted in by any member of the House. The rule which declares that, when the reading of a paper is called for, and the same is objected to, that the House shall determine by a vote whether it is to be read or not, does not apply to the case of a paper first presented for the consideration and action of the House. That rule was adopted, no doubt, in consequence of its having been supposed that this right of a member to have a paper read for information, extended to all papers which were on the table, or in the possession of the House, and on which the House might have passed. To guard against the delay and inconvenience which would have arisen from the exercise of such a right, the forty-second rule was adopted. YEAS.-Messrs. Archer, Barringer, John Blair, Bockee, Boon, Briggs, Bunch, Bynum, Cage, Cambreleng, Casey, Chaney, Chinn, Claiborne, Clay, Clayton, Connor, Deberry, Dennis, Dickinson, Duncan, Dunlap, Ewing, Felder, Forester, Fowler, Philo C. Fuller, Gamble, Gholson, Gordon, Grayson, Griffin, T. H. Hall, Hannegan, Hawkins, Hawes, Heister, Hubbard, Inge, N. Johnson, C. Johnson, Kinnard, Luke, Lea, Lewis, Loyall, Lucas, Mardis, John Y. Mason, McDuffie, McKay, McKim, McKinley, R. Mitchell, Patton. Peyton, Pinckney, Polk, Rencher, Schley, W. B. Shepard, C. Slade, Speight, Standifer, Stoddert, William P. Taylor, Thomson, Wayne, C. P. White, Wilde-69. NAYS.-Messrs. J. Q. Adams, J. Adams, H. Allen, J. J. Allen, C. Allan, W. Allen, Anthony, Ashley, Banks, Barber, Barnitz, Baylies, Beale, Bean, Beardsley, Beaumont, J. M. Bell, Binney, Brown, Bull, Burges, Burns, Carr, Chambers, Chilton, Choate, William Clark, Clowney, Corwin, Coulter, Cramer, Crane, Crockett, Day, Deming, Dickson, Evans, Edward Everett, Horace Everett, Fillmore, Foot, William K. Fuller, Fulton, Gillet, Grennell, Joseph Hall, Hiland Hall, Hamer, Hard, Hardin, James Harper, Harrison, Hathaway, HazelHazel tine, Heath, Henderson, Jabez W. Huntington, A. That rule, however, is only applicable, in the Huntington, Jarvis, Benjamin Jones, Lane, Lansing, Laporte, Lay, Leavitt, Love, Lytle, Abijah Mann, opinion of the Chair, to papers upon the table, J. K. Mann, Moses Mason, McCarty, McComas, or in possession of the House, and does not apMcIntire, McKennan, McLene, McVean, Mercer, ply to papers first presented to the House, and Miller, Milligan, H. Mitchell, Osgood, Page, Parks, on which its action is to be had. When any Parker, Patterson, D. J. Pearce, Franklin Pierce, paper is thus presented for the first time, in the Pierson, Potts, Ramsay, Reed, Schenck, Shinn, business and proceedings of the House, any Smith, Spangler, Stewart, Sutherland, William Tay- member has a right to have it read through lor, P. Thomas, Turner, Turrill, Treedy, Vance, once at the table before he can be compelled to Vanderpoel, Wagener, Ward, Wardwell, Wat- give any opinion or vote in relation to it; but, mough, Webster, Whallon, E. D. White, Frederick having been once read, it is, like every other Whittleseyli, Esha Whittlesey, Wilson, Young-paper that belongs to the House, to be moved to be read, if again desired; and, if objection 115. So the House refused to consider the resolu- be made, the sense of the House is to be taken tion. TUESDAY, March 4. Removal of the Deposits-Report of the Committee of Ways and Means. Mr. POLK, from the Committee of Ways and Means, to which had been referred the letter by the Chair. This is an important right to each individual member, one of the few that can be exercised by him against the opinion of the House, and which no majority can, as the law now is, deprive him of. It has been so regarded, and held sacred, by the individual who fills the Chair, and he has been sustained by the practice and decision of the House. In 1802 the question was first raised, in relation to H. OF R.] Purchase of Books for Members. a communication from the then Secretary of War: a motion having been made to dispense with the reading of it, was decided, by Mr. Speaker Macon, to be out of order, (no doubt for the reasons now stated, though that does not appear,) and approved by a vote of more than four to one. A difference of opinion had probably arisen on the subject, the Speaker said, in consequence of the rules as laid down in the Manual. The authority of Hatzel, which Mr. Jefferson referred to as justifying the rule, had been entirely misapprehended. The practice of the House of Commons certainly, since the time of Mr. Onslow, was in accordance with the decision now made, and the right in question he had ever regarded as one highly important to each individual member of this House. The report must therefore be read, if desired by the member from Alabama. The House acquiesced in the decision of the Speaker, and the paper was read. The reading of the report was then commenced, and had proceeded some time, when Mr. CLAY, stating it to be his understanding that no objection would be made to the printing of an extra number of the report, withdrew his call for the reading; and it was thereupon suspended; but, at the request of a member, the resolutions with which the report closed were read, as follows: 1. Resolved, That the Bank of the United States ought not to be rechartered. 2. Resolved, That the public deposits ought not to be restored to the Bank of the United States. 3. Resolved, That the State banks ought to be continued as the places of deposit of the public money, and that it is expedient for Congress to make further provision by law, prescribing the mode of selection, the securities to be taken, and the manner and terms on which they are to be employed. 4. Resolved, That, for the purpose of ascertaining, as far as practicable, the cause of the commercial embarrassment and distress complained of by numerous citizens of the United States, in sundry memorials which have been presented to Congress at the present session, and of inquiring whether the charter of the Bank of the United States has been violated; and, also, what corruptions and abuses have existed in its management; whether it has used its corporate power or money to control the press to interfere in politics, or influence elections; and whether it has had any agency, through its management or money, in producing the existing pressure; a select committee be appointed to inspect the books and examine into the proceedings of the said bank, who shall report whether the provisions of the charter have been violated or not; and, also, what abuses, corruptions, or mal-practices have existed in the management of said bank; and that the said committee be authorized to send for persons and papers, and to summon and examine witnesses, on oath, and to examine into the affairs of the said bank and branches; and they are further authorized to visit the principal bank, or any of its branches, for the purpose of inspecting the books, correspondence, accounts, and other papers [MARCH, 1834. connected with its management or business; and that the said committee be required to report the result of such investigation, together with the evidence they may take, at as early a day as practicable. The question was put on the postponement and carried; and the report was ordered to be printed. Mr. BINNEY presented to the House a report from the minority of the Committee of Ways and Means on the same subject, and moved that it receive the same destination with the last paper; which was agreed to. Mr. CLAY moved that 10,000 extra copies of both reports be printed. Mr. HALL, of Maine, moved 15,000; which number was agreed to. WEDNESDAY, March 5. LEVI LINCOLN, member elect from Massachusetts, coming to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of JOHN DAVIS, appeared, was sworn, and took his seat. SATURDAY, March 15. Purchase of Books for Members. Mr. SPEIGHT moved the suspension of the rule, in order to take up a joint resolution relative to the purchase of certain books. Agreed to. resolution for the purchase of certain books, The House proceeded to consider a joint the question being on an amendment reported from a Committee of the Whole, for the purchase of additional copies of Gales & Seaton's Debates. Mr. FOSTER said that when the subject was up formerly, he stated that he would endeavor to cause our constituents to be informed of the amount of money which we appropriated to ourselves. He wished to have a law providing what books we should purchase, and stating what sums we should appropriate for them. He was willing to buy Gales & Seaton's nine volumes, and Elliot's book, and Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, and Hume's England, and Kent's Commentaries, &c., pay for them out of a certain and limited contingent fund, as far as it goes, and paying the balance out of our own pay. Some one once asked whether members who opposed these appropriations received the books. He replied to the question that he did receive them. But, if the House would leave the money in the Treasury instead of appropriating it to the contingent fund, he would suffer the books to remain on the printer's shelves. He then moved that the resolution be recommitted to the Committee on the Library, with instructions to inquire and report what books ought to be parchased, and the amount which they will cost. Mr. ADAMS had no objection to the object of the inquiry, but he wished to have a bill, instead of a joint resolution, reported. He conceived that the resolution, as it stood, was un MARCH, 1834.] Purchase of Books for Members. [H. OF R. constitutional. His objection was not to the | the patronage of Congress should be continued object but to the form of the proceeding. Mr. FOSTER said that, as the members would not, he hoped, be unwilling to record their names upon a question whether the people should be informed of the amount of money which we appropriate to ourselves, he asked the yeas and nays on the question. The House refused to order the yeas and nays, twenty-four only rising in the affirmative. Mr. FOSTER'S motion to recommit was rejected, thirty-seven voting in the affirmative. Mr. FOSTER said he was only sorry that the thirty-seven members had not voted for the call of the yeas and nays. The amendment of the Committee of the Whole was concurred in. Mr. SPEIGHT then offered his amendment. Mr. J. Q. ADAMS opposed the amendment and resolution. The constitution, he said, declared that no money should be drawn from the treasury but in consequence of an appropriation by law. Nothing could become a law but that which was introduced in the form of a bill. Every bill, before it shall become a law, must be presented to the President of the United States for his approval and signature. This, said Mr. A., is the first instance of an attempt to appropriate money by joint resolution. There was not a single instance of the kind on the statute books. If the resolution passed, he hoped the appropriation would be stricken out. Mr. SPEIGHT Would ask if the gentleman means to say that no appropriations have ever been made by resolution. He would refer the gentleman to a resolution which he himself introduced, at the commencement of the session, for the purchase of the bank book. Mr. ADAMS: There was no appropriation in that. Mr. SPEIGHT subscribed to the doctrine of the gentleman, that no money can be appropriated except by law. What is law? The expression of the will of the Legislature, in joint resolution, was an expression of that will, and had all the sanction of law. He was surprised to hear the gentleman assert that no appropriations had ever been made by joint resolution; appropriations had been often made indirectly, and he believed directly, by resolution; and he could point out to the gentleman a joint resolution of this kind, which he himself sanctioned during his administration. Mr. ADAMS: I would be glad if the gentleman would show it. to it. In conclusion, Mr. S. said, that unless we got books for the new members, he should propose that the old members should bring all the books which they have heretofore received, put them down in a pile, and divide them among all the members. Mr. FOSTER: I will join you in that, sir. Mr. McDUFFIE suggested that if "appropriated" was stricken out of the joint resolution, it might obviate the objection of the honorable member from Massachusetts. Mr. SPEIGHT's amendment was read as follows: strike out after resolved, and insert "that the members of the present Congress, who have not heretofore received them, be supplied by the Clerk with the same books that have been ordered to be furnished to the members of the last Congress; together with complete sets of the Register of Debates, to the 9th volume inclusive, and that such members of the last Congress as have received parts of the Debates be also furnished with volumes necessary to complete their sets to the 9th volume inclusive; and that the expense be paid out of the contingent fund." Mr. POLK, for one, could not vote for the amendment, because, if he did, he would thereby be abandoning the great principle for which he had always contended, viz.: that the House had no right to use their contingent fund for such purposes, or cause any books to be ordered or paid for except by a law or by joint resolution. He would state that he was not opposed, but, on the contrary, was willing to vote that the new members should receive such books as had been voted to the members of the last Congress; but he could not give the former members any addition to what they had already obtained. Mr. SPEIGHT said that he coincided in the opinion avowed by the honorable member from Tennessee as to the principle about the contingent fund; but, under the circumstances, he considered that it was only an act of justice that the new members should be placed on a similar footing with the old; and as the Senate did not choose to come to the House for a joint resolution for the purchase of such books as they desired, he would not go to them. Mr. PARKER was opposed to the amendment. He thought at the time that the House had receded from their disagreement to the Senate's amendment to the House appropriation bill, there was an understanding that, thenceforth, all future purchases of books should be provided for by bills for that purpose, or by a joint reso Mr. SPEIGHT had but one motive in offering his amendment; it was to put the new mem-lution of both Houses. bers on the footing with the old members, in respect to being furnished with books. He proposed to furnish the new members with the nine volumes of the Register of Debates, and the old members with the last volume. He also stated, upon the authority of a letter from Messrs. Gales & Seaton, that this work must be discontinued, for want of patronage, unless Mr. BARRINGER rose to set the member from New Jersey right upon this. He had certainly not supposed there was any such understanding. The Senate, so far from having it, had, by their acts soon after, completely negatived the idea that there was any understanding of the kind; for they had supplied themselves with books without regarding the disposition of the House |