SENATE.] Donations to Deaf and Dumb Institutions. [APRIL 5, 1830. But, sir, you propose to effect this economical reform, stitutions already incorporated. If we make an appropri how? By cutting down the institutions of the country, and ation for one State, why not, he asked, extend the proviby suspending all internal improvements; by changing sions of the bill to all the States where these institutions the policy of the Government. are incorporated? You propose to dismiss, without ceremony, a large num ber of officers of the navy, who have devoted their lives to your service; and this is the economy. And do you believe the people will justify this violation of the rights of your officers? Sir, I agree to increase their rank and pay, and to reduce the establishment by accidental vacancies, but never to confer the power of removal, and then give, as proposed, power to the President to increase the number. Mr. DICKERSON replied in the affirmative. Mr. MARKS stated, that, in Pennsylvania, the institution was incorporated by the Legislature many years ago, and possesses an annuity of eight thousand dollars. There were seventy-five pupils now maintained and educated in it, some of whom were from New Jersey and Maryland. By the last census it appeared there were five hundred of this unfortunate class of persons for whom this institution was designed, in the State of Pennsylvania alone. Sir, my colleague has stated at full length all the reforms Mr. KING said he would move to recommit the bill, which have been introduced; on his own statement they with instructions to embrace in its provisions all the States amount to very little. The money has been drawn from which are now omitted. He could not see why Congress the treasury for forty years, in a mode regulated by law should be called upon to legislate, session after session, and custom; no loss has been sustained; none apprehend- for individual States. If it be the intention to continue ed; and now it is said, and with some pride, that another such appropriations, why confine them to particular States? check has been found out to guard against what has never He moved to recommit the bill, to include all the States happened. which now are in, and which may hereafter be admitted into, the Union. Sir, I made no charge of extravagance; I passed no censure except upon the report, which I felt it my duty to expose, because I know such desperate expedients, even if they have momentary success in deceiving the people, will always recoil upon their authors. I think no statesman should descend into that arena. The great distinctive difference between parties and those who administer the Government, are principles, and the character and talents of those who personate the principles and represent the parties in the administration of the affairs of the country. It is to this issue evey contest between honorable men should be brought. We should address the understanding of the wise and the good, not the passions or the prejudices of the weak or the ignorant. Mr. SANFORD said the bill would be lost for this session, if now recommitted, as proposed by the gentleman from Alabama, and he hoped, atthough he was favorable to its objects, that he [Mr. KING] would not press his motion. If the bill be reported agrecably to the instructions, it may come before us too late to be acted upon. He therefore hoped the gentleman would consent to let it pass as it is. Mr. BARTON moved to strike out all after the enacting clause, and insert a substitute embracing all the States not already provided for by such grants. Mr. KING said the amendment offered by Mr. BARTON perfectly answered the objects he had in view, and he would therefore withdraw his motion. Mr. BARNARD agreed to the propriety of the propo I have advocated every scheme for the better organization of the Executive departments, every bill for improv-sition of Mr. BARTON, but thought the better course to ing the operations of the Government. I will go into every expenditure; introduce economy where it can be done; retrenchment where it is necessary; but, let the merit be in the reformations, not in vain protestations and empty promises; not in making reform the jest and the scorn of the people. Mr. JOHNSTON here gave way, and the Senate adjourned over to Monday. MONDAY, APRIL 5, 1830. DONATIONS TO DEAF & DUMB INSTITUTIONS. On motion of Mr. MARKS, the bill making an appropriation of a township of land for the support of the New York Institution for the education of the Deaf and Dumb, was taken up for consideration. pursue would be, to give these donations of lands to the States which have already incorporated institutions of this character, and to defer providing for other States until they shall have also chartered institutions. Although he was favorable to the objects of the amendment, yet, as its only tendency now would be to embarrass the bill, he hoped it would be rejected. Mr. McKINLEY said that, so far from the amendment embarrassing the bill, it would relieve it from all embarrassment, as the disposition of it would tend to establish one of two principles in relation to the bill itself; that is, whether the principle of it should be adopted as a general principle, or rejected altogether. This ought to be done; and if it is right to appropriate thus for one State, it is right for all; and if it is not right for all, it is not right for one. It would be incorrect to legislate in favor of any The question being on the amendment heretofore pro-one State, as it is certain that in all the States there are posed by Mr. MARKS, to embrace within the provisions some deaf and dumb people in proportion to the popula of the bill the institutions in the States of Pennsylvania and North Carolina, Mr. BURNET suggested the propriety of including the State of Ohio, which had petitioned for a similar appropriation to the Deaf and Dumb Asylum of that State. Mr. MARKS accepted the proposition as a part of his amendment. Mr. DICKERSON expressed a hope that his State (New Jersey) would be added to the provisions of the bill. tion of each. Let the principle be tested, he said: he would vote for the amendment, as it would have that effect. Mr. LIVINGSTON considered it his duty to express his sentiments on this bill. By it, it is intended to make an appropriation of the public lands for the support of inst tutions of private charity in individual States. That was the object of the bill, and nothing else; and looking to that constitution which all are so anxious to preserve, I would ask [said Mr. L.] from what part of the constitution this authority is derived, which the bill proposes to exercise. These are public lands, to be sure; but our obligations in the disposition of them, are the same as in the appropriation of the funds of the country. The constitution says we shall dispose of the public funds for the general welfare. Of this, there are two constructions: Mr. KING inquired of Mr. DICKERSON, whether a one is, that these appropriations shall be made under cer Deaf and Dumb Institution had been chartered by the Le-tain expressed powers in the constitution, which [Mr. L. gislature of New Jersey, as this bill was intended for in- said] was his construction; and the other was the liberal Mr. BURNET said he would not offer any objections to this proposition. He remarked, that, to avoid the trouble of introducing separate bills in relation to each particular State, it would be well to embrace all which had institutions of this nature, already chartered, and now in full operation. APRIL 5, 1830.] Donations to Deaf and Dumb Institutions. [SENATE. doctrine--that Congress has the power to appropriate for what was to be done with that surplus? Are not the lands purposes not inimical to the constitution. The public which the States of Georgia and Virginia ceded to the lands are intended for the benefit of all--for the common United States, to be then appropriated for the common benefit. Where, he asked, was the difference between benefit of all, including the States themselves? In addithe objects for which the public lands and the public funds tion to the Virginia and Georgia grants, the United States were intended? The common benefit and the general purchased lands from foreign Governments. All these are welfare appeared to him to be synonymous. What, then, to be appropriated for the use and benefit of all. When are the objects of this bill? One gentleman proposes to give a surplus shall be left, after the public debt is paid, how is. a township of the public lands to one State-next it is pro-it to be disposed of? The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. posed to include three other States; and lastly, the gentle. LIVINGSTON] is in favor of appropriating the public lands man from Alabama [Mr. KING] proposes to extend the for purposes of internal tmprovement when applied to naprovisions of the bill to all the States of the Union, and tional objects. There will be more difficulty in deriving to those which may in future be admitted into it. Where, from the constitution the power to effect these objects-he asked, was the authority for this, but in those general to determine on the objects which will answer the descripwords in the constitution, the common benefit?" We tion of national ones, than the power which he now denies cannot [said Mr. L.] make this appropriation under such to Congress. Mr. McK. then briefly recapitulated his ara power; and if we can do it, my ideas of the constitution guments. have been hitherto grossly erroneous. My idea is, that Mr. BARTON said that the power proposed to be exsuch subjects ought to be left to the care of the States ercised here was the same as that under which the 16th themselves; that the public lands are entrusted to us to be section of each township of public land was granted for disposed, not for the purpose of relieving poverty and seminaries of public learning. Some call this a compact, distress, but for general, and not for particular purposes. and others an exercise of the legislation of Congress. In one State, suppose there are a certain number of des- But suppose [said Mr. B.] it is a compact, we receive an titute people, and in another State a certain number of equivalent: for we can ask no higher compensation for deaf and dumb; are we to provide for each of these class- these donations than the education of the deaf and dumb. es? And if for only one class, I would be glad to know Education he conceived to be the highest order of nawhat part of the constitution points out the distinction. If tional compensation, and a compensation of a great and this bill is to be adopted, then shall we become the super-noble character, considering the unfortunate but interestintendents of the domestic concerns of the States. I would ing objects for whose education the appropriation is inbe glad to know [continued Mr. L.] why we should make tended. Mr. B. said, he did not think it necessary to go an appropriation for the support of a deaf and dumb institution in New Jersey, and not of a marine hospital in any seaport town in the United States. into the constitutional argument, but he was not aware that any greater constitutional objections could be urged against this bill than the bill making an appropriation of public lands for the carrying on of public works in Alabama was liable to, which had just passed the Senate. Mr. L. stated the course he had always pursued in reference to the disposition of the public lands, although it was possible he may have had, in some instances, unknown Mr. LIVINGSTON said his arguments had not been anto himself, varied from it. With respect to the new States, swered by the gentleman from Alabama; and having rehe considered it was a duty Congress had to perform-peated them, he proceeded to notice what had fallen from which it was obliged to perform by the terms of the dona- that gentleman. He admitted, with him, that the States tions of these public lands-to appropriate what was ne- have declared that the public lands should be applied for cessary to carry on the operations of these States. Next the common benefit of all, including that of each State, he considered it necessary to give them public lands for and that each State, in relinquishing its lands to the Unitthe maintenance of their public institutions, because ed States, had an ulterior motive--after the public debt we possess those lands, and have conseqently stopped should have been paid, after the debt of the Revolution the sources whence they would draw taxes to enable should have been discharged-namely, its own peculiar them to support these institutions. Therefore [Mr. L. advantage. But he [Mr. MCKINLEY] had asked what dispo sad] he always gave his vote in favor of appropri- sition ought to be made of the surplus, after the debt is ations for any reasonable purpose, when required by the paid. To this question, Mr. L. said he would answer, States in which the lands lie. He also would vote, and had first, to relieve the people of all their taxes, if the reve voted, for any measure which, in his judgment, would nue derived from the public lands would be sufficient for have the effect of improving the value of the public lands. the support of Government. We have now two hundred The more facilities which were afforded for the improve-millions of acres of public lands, which, at the rate of two ment of these lands, by canals, roads, &c. the more he dollars, would yield us four hundred millions of dollars; thought the public treasure would be increased. Mr. L. the interest of which would be sufficient to carry on the concluded by saying he could not, in his conscience, vote operations of Government. This would be a new era in for the bill, or for any of the modifications proposed, howe- Government; a people living without paying, and a Gover laudable and just he admitted the objects of them to be. vernment existing without the support of, taxes. Mr. McKINLEY said his object was to test the sense of [said Mr. L.] is a proposition to appropriate for a poorthe Senate on the principle of the bill. He proceeded to house in one State, and another proposition for the same reply to the arguments of Mr. LIVINGSTON, and contend- in all the States; and these objects are said to be for the ed that on Congress devolved the power of giving a con- common benefit. If this system is persevered in, we shall struction to the constitution. He argued that the power have no limits to the exercise of this power but our own of Congress, as to the appropriation of the public lands, good will and pleasure. Mr. L. denied the analogy was, that the lands should be disposed of for the common contended for by the gentleman from Missouri, [Mr. BARbenefit of all the States, including the State making the Tox] between this case and that making appropriations for grant of these lands to the United States. He asked if public seminaries in the new States. He said he would the gentleman from Louisiana believed the proper con- vote against the bill. He saw the length to which Construction of the words "common benefit," in the constitu- gress would be obliged to go if the principle were adopttion, was that appropriations of the public lands should be ed. Establish the principle of it, and hereafter it will be made to the United States only. These lands were given quoted as a precedent for measures which will require a to the United States by the States to aid in paying off the more extensive construction of the powers of Congress debt of the revolutionary war. When that debt shall be than even now is advocated. No answer can then be gipaid, and a surplus shall be found remaining, he asked ven to such an argument; but all will be swept away by Here SENATE.] Donations to Deaf and Dumb Institutions. the doctrines of general construction. Then the powers of the State Governments will all be consolidated here, and the next step will be to a monarchy: for consolidation and monarchy are inseparable. [APRIL 5, 1830. Mr. B. said that he would then suggest an idea which he hoped would be in order, and applicable to the argument of the gentleman from Louisiana. Jupiter and Juno (and when he mentioned Homer he did not mean to quote Mr. MARKS said that this bill introduced no new prin- him, although, if he happened to misquote, it would be ciple. There were many precedents for it. He instanced more excusable than the misquotation of Shakspeare in the appropriation, made in 1818, for the support of the relation to Banquo's ghost)-Jupiter and Juno, he reConnecticut Asylum for the deaf and dumb, and that peated, are always, when introduced by Homer on any made in 1826 to a similar institution in Kentucky. That important occasion, concealed in impenetrable darkness, was the time, he said, to have raised an opposition to the that they cannot be recognized by those against whom principle, and not now. He instanced also the appropria- the celestial arms are raised. This is the mode to adopt, tion of ten thousand dollars to the sufferers of Alexandria to enable the President to establish a monarchy. Now, by the fire which some years ago took place there. There with great deference, [said Mr. B.] I consider that illuswas no difference, he thought, between appropriating the tration as pat to my purpose. As to the constitution, that proceeds of the public lands directly, and the lands them- is a res adjudicata--it is settled; and if we have trespassselves, as in this case is proposed. That appropriation of ed beyond its limits, there is a restraining power in the the public money was made unanimously. He viewed Judiciary. Mr. McKINLEY and Mr. LIVINGSTON again addressed the Senate, severally stating and explaining their views in relation to the bill. this case as the gentleman from Missouri, [Mr. BARTON] Mr. HAYNE said, whenever he heard the constitution that we should adopt this bill on the same principle that mentioned on the floor, he knew at once what its fate we make appropriations of public lands for the support would be-that it would be voted down. He rememberof schools in the new States. We have [said Mr. M.]ed that a venerable Senator from North Carolina formerly passed a bill appropriating three hundred thousand dollars said that the constitution was dead and buried. He profor the benefit of Alabama, to aid her in making internal nounced its funeral discourse, and it would be now as improvements, on the ground that it is also for the benefit impossible for human talent to revive it, as it is for man of the United States. Would any one venture to say that to raise the dead. The gentleman from Louisiana need the object of this bill is not more national and more for not expect to succeed. He [Mr. H.] did not rise to disthe common benefit than improvements in Alabama? He cuss the question, but to remark, what will be the natural said he would vote for the bill, as it established no new consequences of this decision. He was glad that the genprinciple. tleman from Alabama moved to carry out the principle of the bill to its legitimate consequences. He proposed, if an appropriation is to be made to one State, that it be extended to all. That was just, fair, and honorable. He Mr. BARTON said he rose to answer one part of the would be glad the provisions of the bill had been extendargument of the gentleman from Louisiana; he referred ed farther, so as to embrace every charity in the country, to what he [Mr. L.] said, in case this bill should pass: that and to give each a township. This is the true questionprecedent would be followed by precedent, until our the length, depth, and breadth of the principle. What Government would become a consolidation of the powers difference should be made between a community and a of the States; that the republic would be overthrown, and State? It is said, nothing can be more elevated in s a monarchy substituted, and finally perhaps it would end national point of view than to extend the blessings of in a despotism or in anarchy. That is not the process, education; but why not also make appropriations for la[said Mr. B.] that is not the route which the Government natic asylums? why not provide for the aged and poor? will take in removing from republicanism to despotism. He did not allude, of course, to the army and navy, (that He would here remark, that, if Congress stept beyond the was a different question) but to the aged and destitute of powers granted by the constitution, we have the Judiciary the United States. Could any thing be more god-like than branch to correct us, and confine us within our constitu- to relieve them? Why not include, also, alms-houses, tional limits. But the gentleman from Louisiana did not and go on through all the circles of public and private state the proper process by which this Government may calamities? arrive at monarchy or despotism. Permit me to suggest The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. MARKS] said [said Mr. B.] what I conceive to be the certain order of we had given donations to people who suffered by fire in effecting this change. It is to render the Executive unre- Alexandria, and asked, should any difference be made in strained and uncontrolled in his prerogatives. He was appropriations of land and money. And are we thus not going to argue now the removing power of the Pre-[asked Mr. H.] to provide for persons who have suffered sident, nor was he going to move to take up the resolu- from the elements, by land or sea-for all who have met tions he offered a few days ago on that question, but he with misfortune-are all to be provided for? What will was proceeding to suggest what he deemed a more likely this end in? The United States will then have jurisdiction way to arrive at despotism than Mr. L. had done. It is of all charities in the country, and next be called upon to what General Washington called a "combination," that make appropriations for them. He said he did not mean would rally round a military leader, dazzling the popula- to go into the constitutional question, but to state the tion by his achievements. The next step would be to principle which we must act upon hereafter, if this bill is have a Senate, (or some body having the name by which passed. Precedents have been quoted to support the bill, that body in France corresponding to a Senate is called) which in turn will become precedent for another exercise that could be driven from its post, and say that the Pre- of a greater power. He wished to explain the respons sident cannot be held responsible, till the end of his term, bility which gentlemen would have to act under in sup for any unconstitutional exercise of his power; that then porting the bill, and on the third reading of it he would is the proper time to call him to an account. As if the call for the yeas and nays. people did not know that the whole mischief was done during the exertion of his power--as if the people did not know that this was but a new version of the old story-shutting the stable door after the horse was stolen," or like the administering of medicine to a dead person. This, too, to be told, by way of enabling the people [The VICE PRESIDENT said the question before the Senate was not the exercise of the Executive powers.] Mr. FOOT asked a division of the amendment. He wished to separate the appropriations for institutions already chartered from those intended for future institutions. The question on the several amendments was put, and decided in the affirmative. Mr. McKINLEY moved an amendment going to make it the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury to select from APRIL 6, 7, 1830.] The Indians.--Pursers in the Navy. [SENATH. among the lands subject to entry at private sale the town-according to the rank of the vessel in the line. A disship of land granted to any State within which such lands tinction is also proposed to be made between their pay may lie; which was agreed to. while at sea, or on land service. Those regulations have Mr. BARTON then moved to add to the bill "and the been made on just and moderate principles. The Secreinstitutions hereafter incorporated shall sell said town-tary of the Navy is authorized to make such other regu ships within five years after their incorporation;" which lations as he may consider necessary to give full effect to was also agreed to. the provisions of the bill. These views which he had expressed, Mr. H. said, were concurred in by the Commissioners of the Navy, and it was believed, if acted upon, would promote the comfort of the crews of our armed vessels; would prevent abuses, and save money to the country. Mr. NOBLE, with a view to afford the Senate further time for reflection on the amendments, moved that they should be printed, and, with the bill, laid on the table; which was agreed to--ayes 25. TUESDAY, APRIL 6, 1830. THE INDIANS. On motion by Mr. WHITE, the bill to provide for an exchange of lands with the Indians residing in any of the States or Territories, and for their removal west of the river Mississippi, was considered in Committee of the Whole; and Mr. WHITE, who reported the bill, expla'ned its object, and, anticipating objections, he discussed at large the rights of the Indians, the rights of the States, and the power of the General Government, in reference to the right of the former to self-government within the limits of a sovereign State, against the will of such State, &c. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN then rose, and said that he desired to make some remarks on the subject of the bill, but, as he was much indisposed, and it was now late, he would move an adjournment. At the request of Mr. McKINLEY, Mr. F. withdrew his motion, and Mr. McK. moved to add to the 4th section these words: Mr. HOLMES inquired why the supplies should not be distributed to the officers and crews at the invoice prices of them, since it was proposed by the bill to give a per annum compensation to the pursers, and why ten per cent. was fixed upon as an advance upon them? Mr. HAYNE replied, that the committee experienced some difficulty in settling this matter, as suggested by the gentleman from Maine. ie considered the per centum fixed upon as just and necessary: for, suppose [said Mr. H.] the United States ought not to make any thing in furnishing the supplies, was it not known that many articles of sea stores were perishable? The committee doubted whether ten per cent. would be sufficient to meet contingent losses. Some thought that fifteen or twenty per cent. would be little enough. Mr. FOOT remarked, that the compensation to pursers, as specified in the fourth section of the bill, was different. It is proposed to give a purser on board of a ship of the line at the rate of two thousand five hundred dollars a year; on board of frigate, two thousand dollars; on board of a sloop of war, one thousand six hundred dol"And, upon the payment of such valuation, the im-lars; and on board of any other vessel, one thousand three provements so valued and paid for shall pass to the United hundred dollars. Mr. F. said he knew no reason why a States, and possession shall not afterwards be permitted purser of a ship of the line, who has the best accommoto any of the same tribe." After some conversation between Messrs. FORSYTH, SPRAGUE, and McKINLEY, on the effect intended by the amendment, and before the question on the amend ment was taken, an adjournment took place. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 7, 1830. PAY OF PURSERS IN THE NAVY. The bill "regulating the duties and providing for the compensation of pursers in the .avy" being taken up for a second reading, dations, who undergoes no more risk than, and is liable only to the same penalty as, the purser of a frigate, should have a larger compensation; nor, on the same principle, could he see why the purser of a slop of war should have a smaller compensation than the purser of a frigate. In small vessels, in vessels less than half the size, and less than half the crew of a ship of the line, the penalty and risk were the same. If the object is to pay for services, they are all entitled to the same sum. Mr. HAYNE said that the compensation was intended to be graduated on the responsibility and trust of the pursers. Is it not man fest that, in a large ship, the trouble Mr. HAYNE, in explanation of the bill, stated the and responsibility will be double that of a small vessel? practice, which now prevails, of furnishing supplies to It was this consideration which suggested the discriminathe officers and crews of the public armed vessels of the tion in their salaries. Whenever pursers are on shore United States. The present mode of making the usual in the discharge of their duty at a navy yard or station, the supplies is, said he, from the stores of the pursers, who bill provides that they shall receive the same pay as purdistribute and make the necessary purchases on their sers on board a frigate; and, while absent on leave, or own account. This practice tends to profuseness, as waiting orders, or absent on furlough, they shall receive the purser is induced to pass off as much as he possibly the same allowances made to lieutentants under the same can, no matter at how high a price he may lay his stores circumstances. These were the views of the Committee up. There were many other abuses, which, taken al- on Naval Affairs, and were recommended by the Navy together, render a change necessary, and it is to remedy Commissioners as judicious regulations. these evils in the system that the bill is recommended. It is proposed that the supplies usually furnished by pursers, shall be in future laid in by Government, under the direction of the Navy Department, and shall be committed to the care of the purser of the ship, who is to furnish them to the officers and crew, according to the accustomed mode of requisition, and at an advance of ten Mr. HAYNE said it was intended to suppose the conper cent. upon the prime cost of such supplies. Pursers tinuance of the cruise, at the end of the cruise; to conare required to account, and are held respons.ble for all sider the purser, with respect to his compensation, still supplies confided to their care; and they are also bound on a cruise, as his labor and responsibility were the same. to give such security as will be satisfactory to the Secre. If the first principle (graduating the pay of pursers) was tary of the Navy for the faithful performance of their a correct one, then this followed as a legitimate conseduties. The bill proposes to change the compensation of quence. Mr. FOOT observed, in reference to that part of the fourth section which provides that each purser shall receive the same pay as when on board of his ship, while settling his accounts at the seat of government, that, as the expenses were equal, the compensation ought to be the same. pursers to a fixed annual salary, which is to be graduated Mr. HOLMES said he was not satisfied with these VOL. VI. 39 SENATE.] Pursers in the Navy. [APRIL 7, 1830. reasons. If the purser of a large ship was longer settling tee had fixed upon the graduation of the pay proposed his accounts than the purser of a small vessel, then there ought to be no discrimination. Mr. HAYNE, in reply, referred the gentleman to the proviso in the fourth section of the bill, which limits the time of remaining at the seat of government to one month. Mr. DICKERSON said the bill proposed to allow pursers absent on leave, waiting orders, or on a furlough, the same pay and allowances made to lieutenants under the same circumstances. He wished to know what lieutenants did receive. Mr. HAYNE replied that they received half pay. Mr. DICKERSON said that abuses in this respect prevailed. He considered the allowance proposed to be given to pursers while in the navy yard, was too great. He submitted that such compensation to pursers, while not on actual service, was too great. Mr. HAYNE said, motives of economy suggested this provision. The moment they come on shore they are attached to the navy yard, and, while absent on furlough, they are to receive the same as lieutenants, who receive but five hundred dollars while absent, &c. It was indispensable to allow them something while not at sea, in order to keep up their connexion with the navy. This, [said Mr. H.] is doing nothing more than we ought to do. The abuses referred to by Mr. D. would be corrected under the bill, as the Secretary of the Navy was thus empowered. in the bill as recommended by the Navy Commission- Mr. FOOT moved to amend the same section so as to reduce the salary of a purser of a ship of the line from two thousand five hundred dollars to two thousand dollars, being the salary proposed for a purser of a frigate. Mr. HAYNE opposed this amendment. He said there could be no better reason for reducing the salary of a purser of a ship of the line to that of the purser of a frigate, than there is for reducing the latter to that of a sloop of war. He dwelt again on the necessity of giving an excess of compensation equivalent to the greater degree of trouble and responsibility attached to the office of purser of a large vessel. The greater number of the crew of large vessels he adduced as an additional reason why regard should be had to the consequent labor that must be undergone. Mr. FOOT considered that the pay of pursers ought not to be greater than that of the commanding officers of the navy. Mr. SMITH, of Maryland, said there was no principle whatever in the amendment. Take the case of collectors in New York and Baltimore; in the former place the collector has double the responsibility, and double the salary. After a few observations from Mr. FOOT in reply, The question on the amendment was decided in the negative. Mr. DICKERSON did not believe it was necessary to pay them so much for the purpose of keeping up their connexion with the navy. They will willingly remain in the ranks without it, and he thought it was improper to Mr. DICKERSON said he was opposed to the differpay them while off duty. That a whole corps should be ence of compensation proposed in the bill when pursers paid at all times when out of service he could not agree, are at sea and on shore. The bill proposes to give them, and would therefore vote against the provision. when discharging their duties at the navy yard, the same Mr. FOOT moved to amend that part of the bill fix-pay as pursers of frigates. He considered this too much; ing the compensation for pursers, while settling their ac- the difference of the service did not justify such a comcounts at the seat of government, so that each purser pensation. He moved to reduce the sum to the pay of should, in that case, have the pay of a purser of a sloop pursers of sloops of war. of war. Here there was no differénce in the responsibility of any, and he thought the compensation of all should be the same. Mr. HAYNE said he would not object to this amendment. The argument was strong that the compensation of all should be as their troubles are, the same. The rate of a sloop of war was a fair medium between a ship and a schooner. The amendment was agreed to. Mr. WOODBURY, admiting the responsibility to be less in such cases, did not object to the reduction, on the part of the Committee on Naval Affairs. The amendment was agreed to. Mr. DICKERSON moved to strike out the words "and while absent on leave, or waiting orders, or absent on furlough, they (pursers) shall receive the same pay and allowances made to lieutenants under the same circumstances." He thought that paying them while not in ser Mr. FOOT said there was great inequality, if not injus-vice was too much like pensioning. He moved the amendtice, in graduating the pay of pursers as proposed in the ment to try the sense of the Senate on it, although hẹ fourth section of the bill. If a purser of a frigate is to was aware of the necessity of keeping them connected have two thousand dollars, why should so wide a distinc- with the navy. tion be made between the purser of a ship of the line, Mr. SILSBEE expressed a hope that the amendment who is to receive two thousand five hundred dollars, and would not prevail, unless it was the intention of gentleof a sloop of war, who is to receive only one thousand six men to drive them out of the service at once. They hundred dollars? I presume, [said Mr. F.] a purser on board ought [said Mr. S.] to be kept in connexion with the naof a sloop of war, on the West India station, would have vy, and if you agree to this proposition, the consequence great reason to complain; for although there is more re- will be, they must quit the service. sponsibility as to the issuing of the supplies, yet on the bond there is the same responsibility. Pursers ought not to be reduced in rank; but there may be pursers who have been long in the service in small vessels, and he therefore thought so great a distinction as this ought not to be kept up. He trusted the Senate would not adopt it: for, if we do, we may as well say to them at once, "go-leave the service." He did not consider their proposed pay as more than reasonable and just. Mr. DICKERSON said he would withdraw his amend ment, though he did not think it required so large a sum Mr. F. moved to amend the bill, so that, instead of giv-to keep the pursers in the service. ing, as it now proposes, one thousand six hundred dollars Mr. HAYNE said, if it had been agreed to, the only to the purser of a sloop of war, "and one thousand three effect of it would be to double the expense of the Gohundred dollars to the purser of any other vessel," it vernment in this respect: for they would all, of necessity, should read, and to the purser on board of a sloop of be attached to some navy yard or station, instead of being war" or "of any other vessel, one thousand five hundred allowed leave of absence, as heretofore. The whole bill dollars per annum." has been suggested by considerations of reform in the Mr. HAYNE opposed this amendment. The commit-department of the Government. |