26TH CONG....1ST SESS.

country, let there also be recorded on the same page deeds of more enduring fame, not, indeed, on the part of the officers and soldiers, for they fought like men, but on the part of the general, who, without intrenching his night encampment, without the ordinary precaution against surprise, exposed these gallant spirits to sacrifice and slaughter.

The gentleman from Indiana has given to General Harrison the credit of first suggesting the armament of the lakes in the war of 1812. If I am correctly informed, that honor belongs to another. It was first suggested by General Armstrong to Governor Eustis, then Secretary of War. The letter bore date the 2d of January, 1812, and says:

"Resting as the line of Canadian defense does in its whole extent on navigable lakes and rivers, no time should be lost in getting a naval ascendency on both; for, cæteris paribus, the belligerent who is the first to obtain these advantages will (miracles excepted) win the game."

Again, the same letter says:

"For western defense employ western men accustomed to the rifle and stratagems of Indian warfare. To their customary arms add a pistol and a saber, and to insure celerity of movement mount them on horseback. Give them a competent leader and a good position within a striking distance of Indian villages or British settlements. Why not at Detroit, where you have a strong fortress and a detachment of artillerists? Recollect, however, that this position, far from being good, would be positively bad unless your naval means have ascendency on Lake Erie,"

In "Armstrong's Notices of the War of 1812," at page 177, is a note on the subject of the armament of the lakes, in the following words:

"No efficient measures were taken by the Government to obtain a command of the lakes until October, 1812. A letter written about this time by General Armstrong to Mr. Gallatin was probably the means of recalling the attention. of the Cabinet to this important subject. In this letter the general stated the following facts: That he was informed by Captain Chauncey that, as early as the month of July, Captain Woolsey had requested twenty six-pounders, of which there were more than one hundred in the navy-yard unemployed; that the intention of Woolsey was to arm such vessels of commerce as could be found on the lake and at Sackett's Harbor, with the aid of which he would be able to get a complete command of the water.'"

On these facts General Armstrong remarked that "the object was of the highest importance; that besides giving us the advantage of an exclusive and uninterrupted use of the lakes for public purposes, it would effectually separate Upper from Lower Canada, cut asunder the enemy's line of communication, and prevent Brock and Provost from succoring each other."

Now, sir, no letter is found from General Harrison on this subject until the month of December following. On the 12th of that month he wrote to the War Department advising the employment of naval means, or, rather, saying "if the Government would employ naval means all these objects could be accomplished in the short space of two months in the spring." But this advice, if such it could be called, was substantially revoked in his letter of the 17th of March. At this time he says:

"If there is positive certainty of our getting the command of Lake Erie, and having a regular force of three thousand five hundred, or even three thousand, well disciplined men, the proposed plan of setting out from Cleveland and landing on the northern shore, below Malden, would, perhaps, be the one by which that place and its dependencies could be most easily reduced.""

After stating his ignorance of "the preparations that were making to obtain the naval superiority upon Lake Erie," and the utter impossibility of transporting a large and undisciplined army, the general proceeds:

"Although the expense and difficulty of transporting the provisions, artillery, and stores for an army round the head of the lake, would be very considerable, the fake being possessed by our ships, and the heavy baggage taken in boats along its margin, the troops would find no difficulty in the land route."""

Here, sir, are the views of a man who has been praised for being the first to suggest the armament of the lakes. Fortunately for the country, these views did not prevail. Time had lessened the influence of the general of the northwestern army, and his suggestions were discarded. A new order was issued by the War Department for prosecuting the campaign on the plan given in March, which was, to get command of the lakes."

But, sir, the plan of operations came near being defeated by a cautiousness amounting to timidity, I had almost said to cowardice. On the 21st of April, the general, after approving of the plan of

Claim of Sylvester Phelps-Mr. Leet.

operations presented by the War Department, says that he shall watch the movements of the enemy narrowly, “but in the event of their landing at Lower Sandusky, that post cannot be saved." The enemy did land, but not to fulfill this prophecy. The post was saved, but not by General Harrison. He had withdrawn the body of his army to Seneca, nine miles distant. Under command of the gallant Colonel Croghan, a detachment of one hundred and sixty men resolved to defend the post or die in the attempt. Sir, need I tell the result? It is written on the brightest page of our history. Mr. Speaker, I will not allude to the determination of General Harrison to destroy his stores at Seneca, and retreat to Upper Sandusky, leaving the whole lake coast defenseless. Nor will I allude to his order to Major Croghan to abandon the fort and repair to headquarters. These I pass over; and I pass over, also, the general's official report, wherein it appears that he left this intrepid body of men to meet all the assaults of near two thousand of the enemy, and left them, too, with but "one six-pounder, seven rounds of cannon cartridges, and forty rounds of small-arms.'

In April the post could not be saved; on the last days of July he ordered it to be abandoned and burnt; but, on hearing the cannonading, he made the discovery that any attempt to storm it could be resisted with effect. He therefore remained in his camp at Seneca, without making a solitary movement, until he was informed that the enemy were retreating. He then went toward the post as fast as the dragoons could carry him, but "not an enemy was to be seen. The General then returned to Seneca, and wrote the Secretary of War that he had before informed him "that the post of Lower Sandusky could not be defended against HEAVY cannon. "He had informed him that the post could not be saved at any rate; and while the battle was raging, speaking of Croghan, he said, "The blood be on his own head; I wash my hands of it."

HO. OF REPS.

thority for asserting that the order of battle was changed at the request of Colonel Johnson.

Mr. CRARY referred to Armstrong's Notices of the War of 1812, wherein was a letter asserting the fact, under Colonel Johnson's own signature. This battle put an end to the war in Upper Canada. In the following spring General Harrison tendered his resignation as major general in the Army. It was immediately accepted, and the vacancy filled with the name of Major General Andrew Jackson. I have seen it stated, Mr. Speaker, in a late publication of the friends of General Harrison, that this resignation was brought about by the War Department from a spirit of malice and envy. This is a libel upon an able but muchabused public servant. The then Secretary of War entertained no ill-will toward the commander of the Northwestern army. He probably considered him an inefficient general, and was glad to supply his place with the name of him whose achievements as a warrior and civilian have filled the measure of his country's glory.

I am aware, sir, that my remarks militate against hundreds of certificates that have been produced to prove General Harrison an able commander. These certificates are entitled to consideration. But it is to be recollected that the great majority of them were given by officers over whom the General had authority. They are the evidence of witnesses under duress, and are to be received at least with caution before the high tribunal of the public. It is not common for generals of distinction-the heroes of battle-fields-to go about the camp to obtain certificates of good conduct. At Austerlitz and Jena and Marengo, Napoleon needed no such indorsement of his fame; nor did Nelson at Copenhagen, at Aboukir, and at Trafalgar. It was reserved for General Harrison to establish the precedent of obtaining certificates from subaltern officers to prove himself a warrior and a hero.

CLAIM OF SYLVESTER PHELPS.

Mr. Speaker, I have done with General HarIn August the exertions of the War Depart-rison. He is now the Whig candidate for the ment were crowned with success. Our squadron Presidency, and his friends expect to succeed by obtained command of the lakes, and, soon after, inspiring in his behalf a military enthusiasm General Harrison crossed over to make an attack throughout the country. They are doomed to on Malden. When he arrived Proctor had fled, disappointment. They may raise the pæan shout and was not overtaken until re reached the in glorification of their hero, but it will meet with Thames of Lake St. Clair. This happened on the no response from the hearts of the millions. 5th of October, when a battle was fought that closed the war in Upper Canada. Of late, the friends of General Harrison have claimed great honor for him on this occasion, but he does not deserve it. The glory of the victory was awarded at the time to Colonel Richard M. Johnson, and it belongs to him. His regiment of mounted men made the charge upon the British lines and broke them to pieces. They also crossed the swamp, and fought against the Indians, without any aid from the rest of the army. The charge was suggested by Colonel Johnson; and all that General Harrison did was to give the order. I am aware that the official report gives us to understand that the plan of attack came from "a moment's reflection."

"While I," says the General, "was engaged in forming the infantry I had directed Colonel Johnson's regiment, which was still in front, to be formed in two lines opposite to the enemy, and upon the advance of the infantry to take ground to the left, and, forming upon that flank, to endeavor to turn the right of the Indians. A moment's reflection, however, convinced me that from the thickness of the woods, and swampiness of the ground, they would be unable to do anything on horseback, and there was no time to dismount them and place their horses in security. 1, therefore, determined to refuse my left to the Indians, and to break the British lines at once by a charge of the mounted infantry. The measure was not sanctioned by anything that I had seen or heard. of, but I was fully convinced that it would succeed."

REMARKS OF HON. I. LEET,
OF PENNSYLVANIA,

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
March 20, 1840.

The bill for the relief of Sylvester Phelps and the heirs of Charles Landon being under consideration in Committee of the Whole, (Mr. DAVEE in the chair,) a motion was made by Mr. PETRIKIN to strike out the enacting clause.

Mr. LEET said he desired to make a remark or two in reply to his friend and honorable colleague, [Mr. PETRIKIN.] He would not incline to do so did he not suppose his colleague labored under a misapprehension in regard to the controlling and leading facts upon which the claim of the persons named in the bill was predicated. The report, it is true, has been read at the Clerk's desk; but since that, and pending the remarks of the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. GIDDINGS,] I have read (said Mr. L.) the report, and now have it before me. Mr. Chairman, I am free to say that I am one of those who are desirous and feel it a duty to scrutinize all these private claims that come before Congress. It is right we should do so; no man will gainsay it. But I am utterly unwilling that my solicitude to protect the Govern ment should prevent me from doing ample and full justice to individual claimants who demonstrate before us that their demands are fair. If this claim be a just one, as I believe it is, I hold we are bound by every principle that should gov ern men or associations of men to pay it. It is magnanimous in a great and powerful nation to see that justice is done to private claimants. Itis, however, objected against this bill that the claim is a stale one; the property, for the destruction of which by the soldiery of the United States, Mr. COOPER inquired of Mr. CRARY his au-destroyed as far back as 1815. Is this a valid as is alleged, indemnity is sought, having been

This is the statement of General Harrison. Would any one imagine from it that the change in the order of battle was suggested by another? Yet such is the fact. Colonel Johnson says, requested General Harrison to permit me to charge.' He did charge, and at such speed that the British had not time to deliver their third fire before they were totally routed.

26TH CONG....1ST SESS.

objection? Shall it prevail? Ought it to prevail? I unhesitatingly say, no. Why, sir, it is well known to members of Congress, it is known to every man in the country, that it is an exceedingly arduous and tedious process to get a bill granting relief to individuals through both Houses of Congress. Many causes, which we cannot control, combine always to make the tediousness of the progress of a private bill in Congress heartsickening and discouraging to the persons to be benefited thereby, and their only consolation is that tardy justice will sometime or other come. If bills that ought to pass do not become laws for a series of years, as is the case, I believe, in many instances, it is not the fault of the claimants. Where a claim has been regularly followed up from Congress to Congress, I cannot agree that the mere lapse of time shall constitute any reason against its ultimate liquidation. I do not conceive that the Government is bound by any law of limitations, either written or unwritten. The only proper inquiry is, is the demand a just one? I know of one claim that has been before Congress upwards of thirty years. It seems to me to be just, and I frankly confess that it never occurred to me that the circumstance of the great lapse of time since it ought to have been paid constituted any sort of objection to the payment of it. But I shall say no more upon this point.

What, Mr. Chairman, are the material facts in the present case? They are few, but strong and satisfactory. It seems that in 1815 the house of the persons named in the bill was taken possession of by United States soldiers, in pursuance of an order of one of the United States officers, not only without the assent of the owners, but against their express wish; that during the occupancy of the house by the soldiers, an unusually large fire was made, and continued for some time. The heat became so intense as to communicate to the wood, and the house was burnt down. The fire, it is true, was not discovered for ten or twelve hours after the soldiers had left. Now, sir, so far as this bill is concerned, the only and material question for our determination is, did this destruction of property occur from any willfulness or negligence on the part of the owners, or was it the consequence of the doings of the United States soldiers? From the facts stated in the report of the committee, and I take them as correct, I think no gentleman will, upon due consideration, doubt as to how and by what means the burning happened. It was not mere accident; it was not a matter with which the owners appear to have had any connection whatever; but was occasioned by the carelessness, to use the mildest phrase, of the United States soldiers. Under these circumstances I am of opinion the bill ought to pass, and shall accordingly cast my vote for it.

ORDER OF BUSINESS.

REMARKS OF HON. D. PETRIKIN,
OF PENNSYLVANIA,

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
March 6, 1840,

In reply to Messrs. BARNARD and FILLMORE, of New York, and Mr. POPE, of Kentucky, on the appeal taken by Mr. FILLMORE from the decision of the Chair, declaring Mr. F. out of order in discussing a proposition growing out of the New Jersey contest.

Mr. PETRIKIN said:

Mr. SPEAKER: It may be thought a bold move in a plain, uneducated countryman like myself to rise in opposition to two learned lawyers and one Governor. There is indeed a fearful odds against me, if I am to judge from the reputation which they have acquired among their own partisans; but, sir, silence would imply assent to their charges and opinions, and to leave them uncontradicted would be criminal. When duty dictates I am bound to obey, and shall therefore ask the indulgence of the House while I attempt to answer what has been said by those learned gentlemen.

The first gentleman from New York [Mr. FILLMORE] who addressed the House had worked himselfinto a passion, and attempted to drive us from our position by a storm of epithets and hard words. He accused the majority of this House of tyranny, despotism, and oppression-scarecrows

this House at least one half of the session of yesterday and to-day, and yet, in the very face of this fact, complains that he is gagged, and not permitted to speak. I should like to know from him, if he calls this being gagged, what would be the consequence if his gag was removed? I suppose he would occupy the whole time of the House, and then complain that it was not sufficiently long to satisfy his loquacious disposition. So much for the first lawyer, and his windy war

of words.

The gentleman, in his ardor to assert his own rights, always forgets that he is violating the rights of others. Is not every violation of the rules of order a violation of the rights of other members? Is not the occupation of the time allotted by the rules of this House for the consideration of the private claims of persons from every quarter of this Union, a violation of their rights? And yet the gentleman complains that his rights are violated. Does the gentleman suppose he can justify himself here, or before the country, in occupying yesterday and to-day in making speeches for mere party purposes? Will the gentleman coolly and calmly ask himself whether he thinks he will be justified in his course of conduct, when he must know that its effect is to prevent hundreds of claims from being acted upon, about which there can be no dispute, and for which the individuals claiming have been praying Congress every session for years to settle?

Mr. Speaker, the object I had in view, when I moved the question of order, was to preserve the time allotted for the consideration of private bills, many of which had been examined and reported by committees, as presenting claims which were just beyond dispute. Not only has this been the case at this session, but many of them have been for years past presented to Congress, but neglected, because the time allotted for their consideration had been consumed in speech-making, in debate which was worse than useless. We are now, Mr. Speaker, in the fourth month of this session, and no one hour has been devoted to the consideration of private bills. We see upon our tables, day after day, reports and bills for the relief of individuals, many of whom are now suffering, and who have been soliciting Congress for twenty years to pass upon their just claims; but now, when, for the first time this session, they are reached, we are prevented from acting on them by the gentleman from New York [Mr. FILLMORE] starting a question of no interest to any one; will not say "it is done for the vilest political purposes, as Mr. SMITH, of Connecticut, said of my political friends, but I will say for no other purpose than to enable him to occupy the time of the House in making a speech on the New Jersey contested election-a subject that he and the partisan lawyers in this body who act with him have each made one or two, and some of them three speeches upon, going over the same story, without advancing one new idea or eliciting or developing a single fact to elucidate or throw new light upon the subject in dispute. The gentleman being himself snug, warm, and comfortably fixed, and well fed with the good things of this world, forgets the hunger, cold, and other privations which many of those are now experiencing whose just claims are before the House, and the action on which is being delayed in consequence of his course. It is too often the case that we forget, or do not think of, what we do not feel or see. If it were otherwise, our actions would often be very different from what they are.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York [Mr. FILLMORE] has been occupying the floor of

Now, sir, I will briefly notice the second lawyer, the gentleman from New York [Mr. BARNARD] on my left, who endeavors, by a lengthy statement of what he calls facts, to get around the

am no lawyer, but I have some little knowledge of how exceptions are taken to opinions delivered by law judges, and must beg leave to object to the reception of the gentleman's statement, although it took himself and two other learned lawyers so long to concoct it. I appeal to every lawyer in this House, if ever they saw a string of facts embodied in a bill of exceptions to the opinion of a judge, delivered on a simple point of law, particularly where the pretended facts only existed in the fertile imaginations of the gentlemen who drew the bill. I must beg leave to protest against the lumbering of the Journals with such stuff, or permitting such innovations on the long and established practice of this House.

I shall now give my attention to my third opponent, the Governor, [Mr. POPE,] who attacks us by dealing out "soft sawder" to the Speaker, which might do if the gentleman was selling wooden clocks to an old woman, but certainly can have little effect with the Speaker, to induce him to alter his decision in this case. 1 am satisfied that the gentleman himself was only carried away by his sympathy for and zeal to help his party friend out of his difficulty, and get the GAG out of his mouth, of which he has so bitterly complained.

I know the gentleman from Kentucky will, when he reflects, see the impropriety of his polit-" ical friends interfering with the time set apart for the relief of claimants, such as wounded and disabled soldiers and seamen, or the widows and orphans of those who have died or been killed in the service of their country. I know him to be a person of humane and good feelings, and feel confident, when he coolly looks at this matter, that he will see that his friends are in the wrong, and that the gentleman from New York has no reason to complain of tyranny or oppression, but that those, the business of whom he prevents action upon, have a right to complain of him.

The gentleman from Kentucky also complains that I stop persons on the floor from speaking as often and as long as they wish. Now, Mr. Speaker, I would not be under the necessity of doing so if those gentlemen would conform to the rules and orders of the House; if they would not be obnoxious to the charge of being out of order.

The gentleman from Kentucky complains because a majority of this House have used the gag law to prevent useless talking and stop idle debate; but he forgets to say anything about the gag law which his political friend from Kentucky, in another part of this building, wished to inflict on the country to gag freemen, and prevent their thinking, speaking, and exercising their constitutional privileges. That gag law would, in the estimation of him and his political friends, be right and proper, though it would bind the freemen of the country hand and foot to the car, and force them to gratify the sordid ambition of their political leaders.

Oh! yes; I have no doubt but those very persons who are now so vehement in their remonstrances and denunciations against gag laws, tyranny, and oppression, would be not only much gratified if the Kentucky gag law was passed, but as loud in praises of it as they now are in denouncing all restraints upon their lawless and disorderly course in this House.

The gentleman from Kentucky objects to the use of the previous question in this House, and particularly points me out as the most frequent mover of it. How the fact last stated is, I do not know. The previous question is essential to getting any business of the country done, and I con

26TH CONG....1ST SESS.

sider it an imperative duty (not at all times a pleasant and agreeable one) to move it whenever think it can be seconded; and I would inform gentlemen that threats, denunciations, sneers, ridicule, or epithets will not cause me to shrink from what I consider my duty. I shall in all cases act as I deem right, regardless of the opinions of others. I will not follow the gentleman to Tippecanoe, nor undertake to contradict him, as to the matter which appears to be uppermost in the mind of every one of the party with which he acts, (if we are to judge by their introducing it into every debate.) I mean their attempts to palm General Harrison on the people for a wise and brave man, necessary for me, or any one else, to do so. History and the facts on record disprove all they assert on this subject, and the people are not so easily duped as they imagine by their system of puffing.

It is not

I am at a loss to know what the gentleman from Kentucky means by the term "slang whang.' If he means granting a request made of me by himself, I then understand it. I have always found the gentleman kind and courteous in my communications with him, and I have always endeavored to be equally so in return, when I could do so without a violation of my duty as a Representative.

The gentleman from Kentucky begs the Speaker to reconsider his decision and reverse it. I can assure the gentleman it is too late for the Speaker to grant his request, however earnestly made, if he were even disposed to do so. The House has decided the question in part, and put it beyond the reach of the Speaker. I hope this will not be a fresh source of accusation against the Speaker as being "an instrument of tyranny and oppression;" an expression used, if I am not mistaken, by the gentleman from New York [Mr. FILLMORE] in his remarks on this question.

Independent Treasury-Mr. Buchanan.

speech which I lately delivered in favor of the Independent Treasury bill has been made the subject of criticism and censure in another part of this Capitol; under what rule of order I confess I cannot comprehend. In some portions of the country, at public meetings and in the public press, I have been denounced as the enemy of the laboring man, and have been charged with a desire to reduce his wages, and depress his condition to that of the degraded serfs of European despotisms. Sentiments have been attributed to me which I never uttered, and which my soul abhors. I repeat, what I declared in that speech, that if I could believe for a moment that the Independent Treasury bill would prove injurious to the laboring man, it should meet my unqualified opposition. I had intended to embrace the first opportunity which presented of doing myself justice upon this subject. Business called me away, and I was absent while the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. CRITTENDEN] addressed the Senate on the resolutions now before it. I understood that he had referred to the wages of labor, in no offensive terms to me, however; but in such a manner as to have presented the opportunity which I so much desired. When the Senator from New York [Mr. TALLMADGE] afterward alluded to the same subject, the debate had assumed a personal character, and I was not the man to interfere against him in such a contest. He had said nothing which could excite any disposition on my part to pursue such a course.

and elsewhere, and never more distinctly than in my late speech in favor of the Independent Treasury. My motto has always been to reform, not to destroy the banks; and I have endeavored to prove-with what success I must leave the public to judge that such a radical reform in these institutions as would prevent violent expansions and contractions of the currency, and thus enable them always to redeem their notes in specie, would prove eminently beneficial to all classes of society, but more especially to the laboring man.

Had I obtained the floor at any time during the last week, my explanation would have been short and simple. The means, and the only means, by which it was alleged that I had sought to reduce the wages of labor to the standard of the hard-money despotisms of Europe, was by the introduction of an exclusive metallic currency into this country. Now, to such a radical change I will now briefly notice the question before the in our currency I have ever been opposed. I have House, and then conclude. I made the objec-avowed my opposition repeatedly upon this floor tions to the discussion of the question of reconsideration during the time allotted for private bills with the view I before stated. I I believed the decision of the Speaker was wrong, or I would not have appealed. I never occupy the time of the House with frivolous questions merely for the purpose of preventing the business of the country being done; nor will I, if in my power to prevent it, suffer others to do so. There is a difference between the question of order I brought before the House and that decided by the Speaker and sustained by the House some days since, on the appeal from the decision by a gentleman from New York. In that case there was no special order; nor did it interfere with the business allotted for any particular day. In this case the rules of the House particularly and specifically assign the Friday and Saturday of each week, after the morning hour, to the consideration of private bills, and that, I allege, cannot be dispensed with or set aside except by a motion to adjourn, or by a vote of two thirds of the members present. I also think the Speaker is wrong in entertaining the point of order made by the gentleman from New York [Mr. FILLMORE] dur-puted to me as the very arguments which I urged ing the pendency of the question on my appeal before the House; and I consider a motion to lay a question of order on the table is not in order at any time, but particularly when the Chair has received two motions as points of order and two appeals from his decision. I do conceive that the gentleman from New York [Mr. FILLMORE] is the last man in the House that ought to complain of the Speaker, who has treated him with great indulgence and courtesy, and only interrupted him after repeated calls to order from every quarter. With these remarks I shall leave the subject to the decision of the House.

INDEPENDENT TREASURY.

SPEECH OF HON. J. BUCHANAN, OF PENNSYLVANIA,

IN SENATE, March 3, 1840, On the speech of Mr. Davis, of Massachusetts, against the Independent Treasury bill.

Mr. BUCHANAN said:

Mr. PRESIDENT: I rise to perform a painful but imperious duty, which I owe to myself. The

SENATE.

quate restraint upon excessive banking. Nay, more; I plumed myself upon the fact that I had been the first to suggest the amendment requiring the holders of Treasury drafts to present them for payment to the depositaries with as little delay as possible, for the express purpose of saving the banks from the injury which might be inflicted upon them by locking up a large surplus of revenue in gold and silver in the vaults of the depos itaries. And I endeavored to prove, not only by my own arguments, but by the authority of one of the most distinguished financiers that this country has ever produced, that the banks never could be injured by the adoption of the Independent Treasury bill, unless in the event of a large sur plus revenue, which would not probably soon occur. I also stated that it would thus become their interest, as it already was that of the rest of the community, to prevent the accumulation of such a surplus. In referring to the blessings which would flow to the laboring man from the existence of a sound mixed currency, whose basis should be gold and silver, I expressly declared that the bill would exercise no great influence in producing this desirable result.

Again, in speaking of the effect which this measure would produce in reducing the amount of our imports-a consummation devoutly desired by all-what was my argument? That the bill would, in some degree, especially after June, 1842, diminish our imports, because we should then have a system of cash duties which would operate as an encouragement to our domestic manufactures.

One of the great objects of my speech was to answer the objections which had been urged against the Independent Treasury bill, by proving that it would not injuriously influence the business of the country in the manner which had been predicted by its enemies; and especially that it would produce little or no effect upon the sound and solvent banks of the country. I thought I had succeeded. It certainly never entered into my conception that any person on the face of the earth could so far have mistaken my meaning as to attribute to me arguments in favor of the bill as directly opposite to those which I urged as darkness is to light.

You may judge, then, Mr. President, of my astonishment, when, in the very second paragraph of the speech of the Senator from Massachusetts, I read the following sentence:

"The Senator from Mississippi, [Mr. WALKER,] with his usual acknowledged ability, and the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania,[Mr. BUCHANAN,] following in his track, have advanced the propositions that the embarrassments and distress with which the country has been grievously afflicted for several years past, and which now paralyze all its energies, are imputable to the pernicious influence of bank paper; that this bill [the Independent Treasury bill] contains the necessary corrective, as it will check importations of foreign goods, suppress what they call the credit system, and by restoring a specie currency, reduce the wages of labor and the value of property. This is the character given to the measure by its friends; and alarming as the doctrines are, I am gratified that they are frankly avowed."

Now, sir, I openly declare, in the face of the Senate and the world, not only that no such doctrines were ever avowed by me, but that these remarks of the Senator are palpable, I will not say intentional, misrepresentations both of the letter and spirit of my speech.

What, sir, to attribute to me the remark, that this bill, by applying the necessary corrective to the pernicious influence of bank paper, "and by thus restoring a specie currency," will produce the disastrous consequences which he has enumerated, when a considerable portion of my argu ment was devoted to prove that the bill would produce no injurious effect whatever upon the sound and solvent banks of the country! Nay, more, that it would exert but a very trifling influence, indeed, if any, even in restraining within safe limits their loans and issues. Now, sir, it may be very ingenious, but it is certainly not very fair to put into the mouth of a friend of the bill, as arguments in its favor, the strongest objections which have been urged against it by its enemies. These would be so many admissions of its fatal consequences, and they would be the stronger when converted into arguments in its favor by one of its friends. Against the whole current of my remarks, against my express and reiterated declarations, both upon this and former occasions, that I was no friend to an exclusive

26TH CONG....1ST SESS.

66

So far from imagining that the Independent Treasury bill would restore the country to a metallic currency, I believed that it would exercise but a slight influence in restraining the excesses of the banking system. Other and much more efficient remedies must be adopted by the several States to restrain these excesses and thus to prevent future suspensions. In my remarks, I stated distinctly what legislation would, I thought, be required to accomplish this purpose. In the first place, I observed that the banks ought to be compelled to keep in their vaults a certain fair proportion of specie compared with their circulation and deposits; or, in other words, a certain proportion of immediate specie means to meet their immediate responsibilities. Secondly, that the foundation of a specie basis for our paper currency should be laid by prohibiting the circulation of bank notes, at the first, under the denomination of ten, and afterward under that of twenty dollars. Thilly that the amount of bank dividends should be mited. Fourthly, and above all, that, upon the occurrence of another suspension, the doors of the banks should be closed at once and their affairs placed in the hands of commissioners. A certainty that such must be the inevitable effect of another suspension would do more to prevent it than any other cause. To reform and not to destroy was my avowed motto. I know that the existence of banks and the circulation of bank paper, are so identified with the habits of our people that they cannot be abolished, even if this were desirable.

Such a reform in the banking system as I have indicated would benefit every class of society, but above all others, the man who makes his living by the sweat of his brow. The object at which I aimed by these reforms was not a pure metallic currency, but a currency of a mixed character; the paper portion of it always convertible into gold and silver, and subject to as little fluctuation in amount as the regular business of the country would admit. Of all reforms, this is what the mechanic and the laboring man ought most to desire. It would produce steady prices, and

It was formerly supposed that the productions of meat and flour were so vast in our extended and highly-favored land that a monopoly of them would be impossible.

steady employment, and under its influence the country would march steadily on in its career of prosperity without suffering from the ruinous expansions and contractions and explosions which we have endured during the last twenty years. The experience of the last two or three years What is most essential to the prosperity of the has proved the contrary. The banks, instead of mechanic and laboring man? Constant employ-giving credit in small sums to honest men, who ment, steady and fair wages, with uniform prices for the necessaries and comforts of life which he must purchase, and payment for his labor in a sound currency.

Let us in these particulars compare the present condition of the laboring man under the banking system which now exists with what it would be under such reforms as I have indicated. And first, in regard to constant employment. What is the effect of the present system of bank expansions and contractions and revulsions in this particular? Is it not absolutely certain, has not experience demonstrated, that under such a system constant employment is rendered impossible? It is true that during the short period while the bubble is expanding and the banks are increasing their loans and their issues, labor of every kind finds employment. Then buildings of all sorts are erected, manufactories are established, and the carpenter, and the mason, and other mechanics, are in demand. Public works are prosecuted and afford employment to an immense number of laborers. The tradesman of every description then finds customers, because the amount of paper in circulation produces a delusive appearance of prosperity and promotes a spirit of extravagance. But, sir, under this system, the storm is sure to succeed the sunshine; the explosion is certain to follow the expansion; and when it comes-and we are now suffering under it-what is then the condition of the mechanic and the laboring man? Buildings of every kind cease; manufactories are closed; public works are suspended, and the laboring classes are thrown out of employment altogether. It is enough to make one's heart bleed to reflect upon their sufferings, particularly in our large cities, during the past winter. In many instances the question with them has not been what amount of wages they could earn, but whether they could procure any employment which would save them and their families from starvation. If our State Legislatures, which alone possess the power, would but regulate our bloated credit system wisely, by restraining the banks within safe limits, our country would then be permitted to proceed with regular strides, and the laboring man would suffer none of these evils because he would receive constant employment.

would have used the money wisely in promoting their own welfare, and, as a necessary consequence, that of the community, have loaned it to monopolists, to enable them to raise the price of the necessaries of life to the consumer. Have we not all learned that $1,000,000 has been advanced by them to an individual for the purpose of enabling him to monopolize the sale of all the beef consumed in our eastern cities? Do we not all know that this effort proved successful during the last year in raising the price of this necessary of life to twelve and sixteen cents, and even higher, per pound. Now, sir, although the wages of the laboring man were then nominally high, what was his condition? He could not afford to go into the market and purchase beef for his family. If his wages increased with the increasing expansion of our credit system, aggravated in its effects by the immense sales of State bonds in Europe, still the prices of all the necessaries of life rose in a greater proportion, and he was not benefited. I might mention, also, the vast monopoly of pork produced by a combination of individuals extend||ing from Boston to Cincinnati, which, by means of bank facilities, succeeded in raising the price of that necessary of life to an enormous pitch. What, then, did the laborer gain, even at the time of the greatest expansion? Nothing-literally nothing. The laborers were a suffering class, even in the midst of all this delusive prosperity. Instead of being able to lay by anything for the present day of adversity, which was a necessary consequence of the system, the laborer was even then scarcely able to maintain himself and his family. His condition has been terrible during the past winter. In view of these facts, I said:

"All other circumstances being equal, I agree with the Senator from Kentucky that that country is most prosperous where labor commands the highest wages. I do not, however, mean by the terms highest wages' the greatest nominal amount. During the revolutionary war one day's work commanded $100 of continental paper; but this would scarcely have purchased a breakfast. The more proper expression would be to say that that country is most prosperous where labor commands the greatest reward; where one day's labor will procure, not the greatest nominal amount of a depreciated currency, but most of the necessaries and comforts of life. If, therefore, you should in some degree reduce the nominal price paid for labor by reducing the amount of your bank issues within reasonable and safe limits and establishing a metallic basis for your paper circulation, would this injure the laborer? Certainly not; because the price of all the necessaries and comforts of life are reduced in the same proportion, and he will be able to purchase more of them for a dollar in a sound state of the currency than he could have done in the days of extravagant expansion for a dollar and a quarter. So far from injuring, it will greatly benefit the laboring man. It will insure to him constant employment and regular prices, paid in a sound currency, which of all things he ought most to desire; and it will save him from being involved in ruin by a recurrence of those periodical expansions and contractions of the currency which have hitherto convulsed the country."

In the second place, what is the effect of the present system upon the wages of labor, and upon the prices of the necessaries and comforts of life? It cannot be denied that that country is the most prosperous where labor commands the greatest reward; but this not for one year merely, not for that short period of time when our bloated credit system is most expanded, but for a succession of years; for all time. Permanence in the rate of wages is indispensable to the prosperity of the laboring man. He ought to be able to look forward with confidence to the future, to calculate Now, sir, is not my meaning clearly expressed upon being able to rear and educate his family by in this paragraph? I contended that it would not the sweat of his brow, and to make them respect-injure but greatly benefit the laboring man to preable and useful citizens. In this respect what is vent the violent and ruinous expansions and conthe condition of the laboring man under our pres- tractions to which our currency was incident; and ent system? While he suffers more under it than by judicious bank reform to place it on a settled any other member of society, he derives from it basis. If this were done what would be the conthe fewest advantages. It is a principle of polit- sequence? That, if the laboring man could not ical economy confirmed by experience, that while receive as great a nominal amount for his labor the paper currency is expanding, the price of as he did "in the days of extravagant expansion," everything else increases more rapidly than the which must always under our present system be wages of labor. They are the last to rise with of short duration, he would be indemnified, and far the expansion and the first to fall with the con- more than indemnified, by the constant employtraction of the currency. The price of a day's ment, the regular wages, and the uniform and more or of a month's labor of any kind, the price of a moderate prices of the necessaries and comforts hat, of a pair of boots, of a pound of leather, of of life which a more stable currency would proali articles of furniture, in short, of manual and duce. Can this proposition be controverted? I mechanical labor generally, is fixed and known think not. It is too plain for argument. Mark to the whole community. The purchaser com- me, sir, I desire to produce this happy result, not plains when these fixed prices are enhanced, and by establishing a pure metallic currency, but by the mechanic or laborer, in order to retain his cus- reducing the amount of your bank issues within tomers, cannot and does not raise his price until reasonable and safe limits and establishing a mehe is compelled to do it by absolute necessity.tallic basis for your paper circulation." The idea His meat, his flour, his potatoes, clothing for himself and his family, mount up to an extravagant price long before his compensation is increased.

plainly expressed is that it is better, much better, for the laboring man, as well as for every other class of society, except the speculator, that the