« PředchozíPokračovat »
But to remove all ground for distinction, take an instance from the collection of treaties before quoted. In the year 1818, Mr Gallatin, then our minister to France, was commissioned jointly with Mr Rush, our minister at St James', to negotiate a treaty with England, in the same manner that the Secretaries of State were commissioned to negotiate at Washington. This nomination was never submitted to the Senate, yet a most important convention, made under that appointment, was ratified by the Senate; so that here we have Commissioners appointed at home, abroad, to Christians as well as infidels, in every form in which the power can be exercised; and in every form acknowledged by the co-ordinate branches of Government, to be constitutional and right; and yet, sir, it is now undertaken to arraign and denounce it as a usurpation.
The second ground of accusation, that the nomination, though made in recess, was not submitted to the Senate when they met, has been anticipated. It may be justified on several grounds. It may be justified on the necessity of keeping the mission a secret until the result was known, on his constitutional power of originating a secret mission without the co-operation of the Senate; and on the inutility of naming persons to be confirmed in offices which were temporary in their nature, and which must expire before the confirmation by the Senate could reach them. Mr L. therefore earnestly urged the rejection of the amendment to strike out the appropriation.
Mr Tyler rose in opposition to Mr Livingston, and said that this was no secret agency, in the diplomatic sense, but a secret embassy or mission. And as to the Panama question, that that was nothing more than a mere abstract declaration made by Mr Adams, that the right to appoint ministers without the interposition of the Senate fell within the competency of the executive power. He did not appoint, however, but, as the constitution required, nominated persons to the Senate for its advice and consent; and yet what was the course pursued. There then stood on this floor nineteen Senators, who moved with the irresistible force of the Spartan phalanx against that principle asserted by him,-a principle which threatened to overthrow the Constitution. The present Secretary of the Navy moved a resolution expressing the opinion of those Senators in the following words, viz: 'Resolved, as the opinion of the Senate, inasmuch as the claim of powers thus set up by the Executive, might, if suffered to pass unnoticed by the Senate, be hereafter relied upon to justify the exercise of a similar power, they owe it to themselves and the States they represent, to protest, and they do hereby solemnly, but respectfully, protest against the same.' Mark this a mere claim set up. The apprehension that that might be called into precedent, to justify the exercise of a similar power by some future Executive, was sufficient to produce so solemn a resolution as that which I have read.
The opinions then uttered by
my colleague are the same that he has enforced in this debate. But I will give you the expressions and opinions of a gentleman who stands more immediately connected with the subject under discussion. I mean the Secretary of State-the person immediately charged with the management of our diplomatic relations, one upon whose advice the President doubtless reposed with confidence.
In his speech on the Panama question, he contended that it was not within the constitutional competency of the Executive, to institute a mission, without previously consulting the Senate.'
And in a speech delivered by him on what was commonly called 'the rules of the Senate,' he made the following striking remarks, viz: that the same disposition to limit the popular branch was forcibly illustrated in the discussions of the foreign intercourse bill in 1798. It was upon that occasion contended, and successfully too, that the House of Representatives had no discretion upon the question of appropriation for the expenses of such intercourse with foreign nations, as the President saw fit to establish. That they would be justly obnoxious to the imputation of gross delinquency if they hesitated to make provision for the salaries of such foreign ministers as the President, with the assent of the Senate, should appoint. What would be the feelings of real and unchanged republicans in relation to such doctrines at this day? Associated with them, was the bold avowal, that it belonged to the President alone to decide on the propriety of the
mission; and that all the constitutional agency which the Senate could of right have, was to pass on the fitness of the individuals selected as ministers. It was pretensions like these (said Mr Van Buren), aided by unceasing indications, both in the internal and external movements of the Government, that produced a deep and settled conviction in the public mind, that a design had been conceived to change the government from its simple and republican form, to one, if not monarchical, at least too energetic for the temper of the American people.' It is indeed true, that the avowal that the President alone possessed the power to decide on the propriety of a mission, and that all our agency consisted on determining on the fitness of the minister to be sent, if not monarchical, is at least too energetic in its tendency, bold, and somewhat reckless; and yet here is a mission originated, and not even the names of the ministers sent in to the Senate; and that, too, notwithstanding a long session of that body had, in fact, intervened. Why, sir, here is not only a bold avowal, but the actual execution of that avowal. Not only no previous consultation with, but no nomination ever submitted. The Secretary also voted for the resolution of Mr Branch in the only form in which he could express his opinion.
And yet, ere those shoes were old,' with which he followed (not 'like Niobe, all tears,' but with a heart full of joy and gladness) the last administration to its grave, the same doctrine is carried into
full practice. Mr Tyler conclud- the affirmative, yeas thirty-seven, ed with a motion to amend an nays seven. amendment offered by Mr Kane, by adding a Proviso.
Mr Kane's amendment was to strike out that part of the fifth amendment of the Committee on Finance, proposed to be stricken out by Mr Tazewell, after the word compensation, and inserting the following:
'Persons heretofore employed in our intercourse with the Sublime Porte, the further sum of fifteen thousand dollars, in addition to the sum of twenty-five thousand dollars, by this act appropriated for the contingent expenses of foreign intercourse.' That amendment having been determined in the affirmative, yeas twenty-two, nays twenty-one.
Mr Hayne moved to strike out the provision for a student of languages; which was determined in the affirmative, yeas twentynine, nays thirteen.
The question was then put, on the amendment of Mr Webster, as amended, and determined in the affirmative, yeas thirty-nine, nays four.
Mr King moved to insert a proviso of a general nature, so as to refer to all former administrations; which was negatived, yeas nineteen, nays twenty-three.
Mr Bibb renewed the motion to strike out the whole of the proviso, which after an explanation by Mr Tyler, disclaiming any intention of giving it a particMr Tyler moved to amend the ular application to the President, amendment as thus amended, by was determined in the negative, adding thereto the following as follows, yeas seventeen, nays 'Provided always, That nothing twenty-five. in this act contained shall be construed as sanctioning or in any way approving of the appointment of these persons by the President alone, during the recess of the Senate, and without their advice or consent, as commissioners to negotiate a treaty with the Ottoman Porte.'
The motion was determined in the affirmative, yeas twenty-five, nays eighteen.
Mr Webster then moved to further amend the amendment, by making an appropriation for a Chargé des Affaires instead of a minister, and by reducing the appropriation for the contingent expenses of the legation, from $50,000 to $25,000.
The motion was determined in
The amendment was then agreed to as follows.
For the outfit and salary of a Chargé des Affaires and a Drogoman, at Constantinople, and for the contingent expenses of the Legation, $36,500; that is to say, for the outfit of a Chargé des Affaires, $4,500; for the salary of the same, $4,500; for the salary of a Drogoman, $2,500; for the contingent expenses of the Legation, $25,000.
For compensation to the persons heretofore employed in our intercourse with the Sublime Porte, the further sum of $15,000, in aid of the sum of $25,000, appropriated for the contingent expenses of foreign intercourse : Provided always, That nothing
For Fort at Mobile Point
For Preservation of Georges
For Repairs of Forts
90,000 For Harper's Ferry Armory
5,000 The bill making the appropriations for the Indian Department, The military appropriation bill was taken up in the House the for 1831, was also taken up in same day with the other bills for the House on the 17th of Febru- the War Department, and receivary, and having passed without ed the concurrence of the House, debate, was sent to the Senate after an ineffectual attempt, by for its concurrence. Mr Bates, to amend it by add
It was there amended by in- ing thereto a section, directing creasing the appropriation for the the Indian annuities to be paid in armament of fortifications from the manner usually followed since $100,000, to $200,000. Mr the grant thereof, until the Indian Clayton also moved to amend it tribes respectively, in general by appropriating $30,000 annu- council, shall otherwise direct. This amendment was cut off by a ally, in addition to the sum appropriated by the act of 1808, for motion of Mr Buchanan for the the purpose of arming the militia previous question, and the bill of the United States. This was then passed and sent to the amendment was rejected, ayes Senate. It was there amended seventeen, nays twenty-five, and by directing the appropriation of the amendment increasing the ap- $80,248 for carrying into effect propriation for the armament of the Choctaw treaty of 1830, to fortifications was disagreed to by be paid out of any money in the the House, when the Senate re- treasury; whereas the House had ceded from it and the bill passed directed it to be paid out of the $500,000 appropriated at the last session, for the removal of the
into a law.
The following appropriations were made by that act, viz: For Pay of the Army, and
This amendinent was concurSubsistence of the Officers $1,108,612 red in by the House, ninety-two