Library Collections: Document: Full Text
 |
The Senate Reacts To Franklin Pierce's Veto
| |||||||||||||
Page 1 All Pages
|
||
| 1 | INDIGENT INSANE BILL. | |
| 2 | On motion by Mr. GWIN, the Senate resumed the consideration of the message from the President of the United States, returning the bill making a grant of land to the several states of the Union, for the benefit of indigent insane persons, the pending question being upon the motion to print ten thousand additional copies of it. | |
| 3 | The motion was agreed to. | |
| 4 | Mr. GWIN. I now move that the further consideration of the message be postponed until Monday week. I am very anxious, Mr. President, to get up another question, in which I feel a great interest -- the Pacific railroad bill, it is known to many members of the body that I am very anxious to be able to have it disposed of, that I may leave here. It has been up at various periods, but has gone over to let other bills be considered. I hope, therefore, that I shall have an opportunity of getting the sense of the Senate upon it next week. I therefore move to postpone the consideration of this subject until Monday week. | |
| 5 | Mr. SEWARD. I hope the motion will prevail. It seems to me that we shall not be able to have a full Senate before that time, and I should not desire to see the question disposed of before all those who feel interested in the question are here. | |
| 6 | Mr. SHIELDS. My only fear is that it ought to be postponed a little longer. For one, I shall not consent to have this acted upon until we have final action on the homestead bill. I am clear, sir, in my opinion, that it is the duty of the Senate to dispose of the homestead bill before action upon this measure. It has been smothered in this body once before; it has been pushed out of its place by a variety of other measures, and for one, I shall now insist, and do all that man can do, to have that finally determined before a debate arises upon this, because, in my humble judgment, the same kind of speeches -- and I expect there will be many of them -- that will apply to the veto message, will be applicable to the other case; and I think we may save time by having the two measures brought forward, and acted upon pretty much at the same time. The homestead bill has laid in this body, and has not been touched, I believe, since almost the middle of the session. My honorable friend from Wisconsin, (Mr. WALKER,) who deserves a great deal of credit for the manner in which he pressed that matter upon the consideration of the Senate, has, as I have with some other measures, upon all occasions when they were brought forward, found that there was something else, in the opinion of the Senate, much more important than that, and it could not be attended to. I think the time has now come to act upon it; and for one, I am glad that we have this message before us; and I will tell you why. We can now, in my opinion, establish some general system in relation to the management and disposition of the public domain. It is all in chaos now; it is all in confusion; and my opinion is that this is a very favorable time for us to settle general principles connected with that subject. Therefore, if the Senator from Wisconsin thinks there is ample time to have final action upon the homestead bill before the discussion is entered upon in regard to this measure, I am in favor of postponing this measure until Monday week; if not, I am in favor of postponing it longer. | |
| 7 | Mr. PRATT. If the Senator from Illinois is prepared to inform the Senate that the President of the United States will veto the homestead bill, if it passes here, there would be some reason for his argument; but unless this is so, I can see no reason for it. | |
| 8 | Mr. SHIELDS. I have no information upon that point. I have too much respect for the President of the United States to ask his opinion beforehand upon such a point, and my opinion of the character of the President is, that he would regard it as an insult to him to be questioned upon such a point before the final action of this body. | |
| 9 | Now, sir, I have no such information. I do not know whether the bill will be vetoed or not; but what I do say is this, that it is an important question touching the management and disposition of the public lands, and that in the final determination of that question by this body, we are considering many of the principles laid down in the message of the President, which I have read with a great deal of interest, and for which I have very great respect. Therefore, I repeat, that I do not know whether the President will veto that bill or not. I will not pretend to prejudge his action upon it. I hope he will not; because I am in favor of the bill, and I should be very sorry to see him veto it; but whether he does or not, I want the opinion of this body upon it. | |
| 10 | Mr. HUNTER. I believe, in the history of the action of the two Houses upon vetoes, it will not be found that either House has ever postponed for so long a period as is now proposed, a reconsideration of a bill vetoed. It seems to me that justice and courtesy to the President require that we should pursue the course which has been usual in regard to such matters. I am unwilling to postpone it longer than next Monday. It is due to the President that the question should be decided -- that we should proceed to its consideration at once. I shall, therefore, vote against any proposition to postpone it to a later period than Monday next. So far as the homestead bill is concerned, the honorable Senator from Illinois is right; the same class of arguments will be used on the one as on the other; and I trust, therefore, that the Senate will not postpone this bill beyond Monday next. I believe it will be found that, in every case in which a veto has been sent to the Senate, they have not postponed it beyond the day after it has been sent in. | |
| 11 | Mr. CHASE. The Senator from Virginia has anticipated what I was about to say. There has been no instance, I believe, in the history of the Government, in which the consideration of a bill returned by the President with his objections, has been postponed for any considerable period. In the instances which have fallen under my notice, the Senate, or the house to which the bill has been returned, has proceeded immediately to the consideration of the bill returned with the objection of the President. The Constitution seems to prescribe that course. It directs that the house to which the bill is returned shall proceed to the consideration of the bill, after the message has been received, and entered on the Journal. The message is considered by the usage of both Houses as spread upon the Journal whenever it is received; and hence, without delay, in a majority of instances, I believe, the House to which the bill has been returned, has proceeded at once to its consideration. | |
| 12 | There have been, I believe, however instances in which it has been proposed to assign a certain day for the consideration of the bill. It is not the message which is usually assigned for consideration, but the bill returned with the objections of the President. With the consent, therefore, of the Senator from California, I propose to submit a resolution that --- next be assigned for the consideration if the bill (giving its title) returned by the President with his objections. In submitting his resolution, I do not propose to indicate any opinion upon the merits of the bill. I voted for it. It has been returned by the President with his objections, and in my opinion it is the duty of the Senate, and of each Senator, to give a careful and thorough consideration to those objections, and afterwards to act as his own judgment dictates. | |
| 13 | Mr. BAYARD. I had intended to submit a resolution similar to that indicated by the honorable Senator from Ohio, and which, I think, is justified by both the practice of the Government and the inference which may be drawn from the language of the Constitution. Yesterday, when this question came before the Senate, after the reading of the message, the first motion made was, that it be ordered to lie on the table and be printed. That was agreed to. The motion was then made by the honorable Senator from Virginia (Mr. HUNTER) to print ten thousand extra copies. On that motion a debate arose that went into the merits of the message, and had scarcely the slightest connection with the consideration of the propriety of making the order to print an extra number of copies of a public document of high importance, emanating from the Executive of the United States, and intended for the information of the people of the country, as well as of the Senate of the United States. | |
| 14 | I had intended, under the practice of the Government, and it seems to me in accordance with the direction of the Constitution, to submit a motion similar to that of the honorable Senator from Ohio, assigning Monday next for the reconsideration of this bill, giving its title in the resolution, to which the President has returned to the Senate his objections. The language of the Constitution requires, that when the President does object to a bill, he shall specify his objections, and return it to the body in which it originated, which shall proceed to consider the same; and, in regard to the practice of Congress under that provision, I will give two instances, taken at different periods, to show what the course has been. | |
| 15 | The first veto message was that of General Washington in 1792, and on that occasion, immediately after the reading of the message, the order was entered: | |
| 16 | "Resolved, That tomorrow be assigned for the consideration of the bill to which the objections apply." | |
| 17 | In 1832, when the veto message of General Jackson came in, as to the bank bill, on the motion of Mr. Webster, the following day -- "to-morrow" -- was assigned for the consideration of the bill which the President had sent in, with his objections. That has been the usual course, I believe, with, perhaps, a single exception. I believe there is one solitary exception, in which the consideration of the objections made by the President of the United States to the bill, was postponed further than the following day. | |
| 18 | It seems to me, as tomorrow is private-bill day, that there will be no impropriety in assigning Monday next for the consideration of this bill; but that there ought to be an early day fixed, appears from the very character of the business. The act has been passed by both Houses of Congress. It stands in such a condition that it cannot become a law unless two thirds of both houses, after hearing the President's objections, agree to its passage. The language of the Constitution seems to require that the message should be considered, and disposed of before going into other legislation, and at as early a day as practicable. I therefore hope, in accordance with the previous practice of Congress, in times quite as exciting as regards political questions as the present, when, no matter how the majority stood, they always proceeded on the succeeding day to the consideration of the subject-matter on which the President presented himself as differing from the two houses of Congress on cardinal questions connected with the construction of the Federal Constitution, that we will pursue that course now, because the questions involved in this message are questions of principle. | |
| 19 | Gentlemen may draw different inferences from the language of the message; they may suppose that the President would veto one bill, and not another. All that may be so; but a full discussion of the doctrines of the Constitution, of the provisions of the Constitution, must necessarily come up in the discussion of this message. They must come up in such a shape now. Fortunately, they must go before the people of the United States. They must be made an issue before the people of the United States, on all particular projects which gentlemen have, no matter how important they may be, whether homestead bills, or Pacific railroad bills, or other railroad bills. They all sink into insignificance when looked upon in comparison with the general principle which covers the whole. Under the uniform practice of the Government, and the language of the Constitution , it would seem to require that, there should be an immediate consideration of the bill returned, with the objections of the President; so that I hope a later day than Monday next will not be fixed by the senate to the purpose of its consideration. | |
| 20 | I do not mean, for one moment, to go into a discussion now of the principles involved in this measure. The time to do so will be when the day assigned for the consideration of this bill arrives; and surely the practice of the Government requires that an early day should be assigned. I prefer the form of my own resolution to that of the honorable Senator from Ohio; but it is very immaterial. Both, I believe, assign Monday next as the day for proceeding to the consideration of the objections of the President to the bill which has been passed by Congress. In doing that, I have followed the precedents as I have found them existing in the history of congressional proceedings. I have followed that, in the first instance, of a veto by the President, and also the case which happened after the lapse of some forty years. These proceedings cover the case now before us, and should govern the action of the Senate upon it. | |
| 21 | Mr. CHASE. I ask that my resolution as it now stands be read. | |
| 22 | Mr. BADGER. What is the motion before the Senate? | |
| 23 | The PRESIDENT. The pending question is on the motion made by the Senator from California, to postpone the consideration of the subject until Monday week. | |
| 24 | Mr. CHASE. I ask the Senator from California to accept the resolution which I send to the chair and I ask that it maybe read. The resolution is as follows: | |
| 25 | Resolved, That Monday next be assigned for the consideration of the bill entitled "An act making a grant of the public lands to the several States of the Union for the benefit of indigent insane persons," returned by the President, with his objections. | |
| 26 | Mr. BRODHEAD. I desire to suggest to the Senate that we either take a vote now on this bill, and let the discussion come up upon the homestead bill, or postpone it for two weeks. Why, sir, there is very little discussion to be had upon this bill. We considered it before we sent it to the President. We considered it yesterday. Several gentlemen discussed it at considerable length. Many of the reasons given in the message operate against the homestead bill. I know that there are several Senators who desire to discuss our land policy; but their remarks can as well be made on the homestead bill. I therefore suggest that, by common consent, we take the vote now, or postpone it to the time indicated by the Senator from California. | |
| 27 | Mr. WALKER. I was much gratified by the suggestions and remarks of the Senator from Illinois, -Mr. Shields.- He seemed to propound the question to me, whether I believe the time between now and next Monday week sufficient for the disposition of the homestead bill. My impression is that it is not a sufficient time. I agree with him that we should postpone the consideration of the bill returned by the President until after we shall have considered the homestead bill; and, assuming the time up to next Monday week to be insufficient for the consideration of the homestead bill, I should be pleased, for one, to see this lull postponed until the Monday following that, so as to be two weeks from Monday next. | |
| 28 | I cannot appreciate the argument that is used, that we are showing a greater amount of respect to the President by hastily proceeding to the consideration of his message, than by postponing it to a future day, and giving gentlemen time to reflect on it, and to make up their minds and arguments for or against the message. I do not think that the early consideration of this matter involves any very grave consideration; any great importance. Why, will not the matter be as well considered two weeks from next Monday as to-morrow? If gentlemen take time to reflect, and to consider for themselves -- to make up their minds and their arguments -- the probability is, that it would be considered better at a future day than to-morrow. In the mean time, we can take up this kindred subject -- the homestead bill -- mentioned by the Senator from Illinois. There are many Senators here who, for quite a number of sessions, have been very an anxious to get that matter to something like a final vote in the Senate; and they have been, as often as they manifested that desire, put off, and the bill postponed, in consequence of something else before the Senate which was deemed of greater importance by the body; and it does seem that this subject is the most unfortunate one that can possibly be mentioned in the Senate. I have known gentlemen who, at the present session of Congress, have manifested the greatest anxiety for the consideration of the homestead bill, and the greatest anxiety for its passage, who were the most marked, apparently, in their determination, on all previous occasions, to postpone it to whatever came up. Some have always preferred propositions to grant land warrants to soldiers; others prefer railroad bills; others this thing, and others that; and everlastingly it seems that the consideration of the homestead bill must be postponed. Now, we have this message. It is conceded that the discussion upon it can about as well come upon the homestead bill. Then, I inquire, why not postpone it for at least two weeks, and in the mean time take up the homestead bill, which is the special order? If I am correct, the Senator from Ohio -Mr. CHASE- introduced his resolution, leaving the day blank. I intended to move to insert, "two weeks from Monday next;" but, from the reading of the resolution, it would seem that the blank has been filled with "Monday next." I therefore, before taking my seat, move to strike out " Monday next," and insert "two weeks from Monday next." | |
| 29 | Mr. BADGER. I believe the actual question before the Senate, is on the motion made by the Senator from California, to postpone the further consideration of this bill until Monday week. | |
| 30 | The PRESIDENT. That is the question. | |
| 31 | Mr. BADGER. If I understand the rules of the Senate, the resolution submitted by the Senator from Ohio, is not now before the body. It is but an intimation of what he will propose, if the motion of the Senator from California shall be voted down. That is the state of the question before the Senate. | |
| 32 | Now, Mr. President, I do not understand that there is anything in the clause of the Constitution directing the body to whom the President may return a bill, with his objections, as to the time when the reconsideration of the bill is to be made. The provision of the Constitution is simply designed to direct what is to be done upon the disapproval by the President of a bill which passes the two Houses, and under what circumstances it may become a law, notwithstanding his objections. The language is -- after stating that the President shall return the bill with his objections, to the House in which it shall have originated -- | |
| 33 | "Who shall enter the objection at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration, two thirds of that House shall agree to the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which, it shall likewise be reconsidered, and, if approved by two thirds of that house, it shall become a law.'' | |
| 34 | There is nothing that intimates that it was the will of the framers of the Constitution that the Senate or the House of Representatives, receiving the objections, should then proceed to reconsider; but that, if this President disapproved the bill, it should be reconsidered by both Houses, and if passed by two thirds, become a law; and the Constitution directs that, in all such cases, the votes shall be taken by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill recorded on the Journal. It is nothing in the world but a reconsideration of this bill -- a reconsideration directed by the Constitution. The time when we are to reconsider it is just as much at our control as the time was when we should consider the bill heretofore. We are to consider all the circumstances which are involved in the inquiry, when shall this reconsideration take place? We are neither unreasonably to delay, nor improperly to precipitate it. We must consider the question with a view to the state of our business, the period of the session, and the necessity for a full and thorough examination of the grounds taken by the President in his message, and the grounds on which the bill may be entitled to support. | |
| 35 | I find that, although it has been usual, and although there is more propriety in proceeding at once to the consideration of such a message, in 1841, when Mr. Tyler sent to this body a veto message on the bank bill, which was passed by the Congress of that year, the message was received on Monday, August 16. It was ordered to be printed, and its consideration appointed for Tuesday, the next day, at twelve o'clock. On that day the Senate proceeded to consider the bill for distribution and preemption. It was considered and debated until twelve o'clock, when the bank bill, which had been vetoed, was taken up, and, on motion, its further consideration was postponed until Wednesday -- the next day. The land bill was then resumed, debated, considered, and amended. On Wednesday, the bank bill was further postponed to Thursday, and the land bill was taken up, further considered, debated, and ordered to lie on the table; and on Thursday, after other business had been disposed of by the Senate, they resumed the consideration of the bill and message accompanying it, and finally disposed of it. It was agreed, on all hands then, that there should be no unreasonable delay; the subject was considered; but it was agreed, also, that there was no necessity for immediate consideration. That being so, the Senate has the same reasonable discretion on this subject as over the propriety of considering any bill originally. Why should they not? It is merely sent back, and the Senate must reconsider it, and pass upon it in the constitutional method. But what restrains them from selecting what they think the best and most expedient time? I see nothing in the Constitution; and with regard to the past practice of the Government, you must recollect, Mr. President, that this message of President Tyler was received on the 16th of August. The session was then nearly drawing to a close. There was a propriety, and I may say a sort of necessity, in disposing of that message under the circumstances, in less time than is required, or would be necessary or proper, in regard to this message. We are now in the early part of May. We have the whole session before us. Having said this, I wish to add that it makes no difference to me whether this message is postponed to next Monday or Monday week. Whatever may suit the convenience of other gentlemen on that subject, will suit mine too. I rose to make these remarks simply because I do not conceive there is anything stringent, directly or indirectly, expressly or impliedly, in the Constitution as to the time when the reconsideration should take place. | |
| 36 | I will add another remark, and not trouble the Senate further. It was said by the honorable Senator from South Carolina -Mr. BUTLER- yesterday, and, I think, properly, that this is a large subject, and the important principles involved in the bill and the message of the President, make it highly proper that the subject should receive a full and thorough examination; and if, as has been said by gentlemen on this floor, that bill was passed through the Senate without adequate consideration and full discussion, it is the more important, I think, that we should take time to look with care into the subject before we discuss and dispose of the bill upon the President's objections. | |
| 37 | Mr. DAWSON. Mr. President, if I understood the precise object which the different friends of the postponement to Monday and Monday two weeks have in view, I should know better how to act. The Senator from Wisconsin -Mr. WALKER- is anxious to take up the homestead bill, and therefore asks for a longer postponement of this question. Some of the friends of the homestead bill, I believe, think that the message upon your table does not affect or touch that bill. | |
| 38 | Several SENATORS. We do not know about that. | |
| 39 | Mr. DAWSON. Gentlemen who understand the character of the veto have been saying that it does touch the homestead bill; but, as I understand, there is not a gentleman on this floor who will undertake to say that the homestead bill falls within the principle of that message. | |
| 40 | Mr. BAYARD. As one, I consider that it would certainly require the veto of the homestead bill. | |
| 41 | Mr. DAWSON. Then, one considers that it does require the veto of that bill; and if that be the opinion of the friends of the Administration generally; wherefore should we occupy the time of this body by making long and tedious speeches upon the homestead bill, when we know it will be met by a veto? | |
| 42 | Mr. BADGER. Long -- not tedious. -Laughter.- | |
| 43 | Mr. DAWSON. Yes. I strike out the word "tedious." Now, for one, I am disposed to believe that the author of the message does not believe that the homestead came within the principles of the message; and the friends of the homestead and the friends of the Administration, being willing to have it taken up and acted on immediately, is an evidence of that fact. The Senator from California, who wishes to postpone this to the most distant day, is governed, not by a desire to take up the homestead bill, but the Pacific railroad bill. | |
| 44 | Mr. GWIN. Yes, air. | |
| 45 | Mr. DAWSON. If that be the object, I shall vote for the earliest day; but if it be for the purpose of taking up the homestead bill and having the whole batch of land bills before the President at once in order to receive his veto, and then to have all the measures acted on at once, I will agree to any postponement you desire. That is perfectly fair. | |
| 46 | Mr. BELL. But if you pass the homestead bill, you do not then know, on the principles of the message, whether he will veto it or not. | |
| 47 | Mr. DAWSON. Then we shall have to wait, of course, for the President to send another message; but I rely very much upon the information which gentlemen will receive, that I may be informed what is the position of the land bills. I am one who opposed originally the distribution of the proceeds of the public lands. I changed my opinion, because Congress, by a continuous number of decisions, declared that we had the right to dispose of the public lands in the way we have been going on to do for years, and I saw the public lands all going to private companies and into the hands of individuals. I determined then to adopt the principle of the distribution of the proceeds of the public lands. That was right; and the first effort we could make was to touch the insane and the lunatics. Why? Because they could not go and occupy the lands under the homestead bill, having no volition, being controlled by guardians. They could not occupy it and settle it. Recognizing the principle of the President, that the General Government is the trustee for the whole of the people, and that we ought to regulate our trust funds, or the land in the States, on principles that a discreet landed proprietor would do, I considered that a discreet landed proprietor, if he had a number of children for whom he was trustee, and they were insane or lunatics, would make some provision for them, and that it would be for the general benefit of all; and, as I knew that the lunatic or insane had never received a dollar's advantage out of the public treasury of the country, or out of the lands which belong to them as well as to anybody else, I thought it was a fair ground at once to commence the distribution, and act as a sensible landed proprietor or trustee would do, by dividing the estate among the ceslui que trust, and I went for that bill. But if the President is determined to arrest these railroad bills, and the homestead bill, and this bill also, and we shall adopt some new rule by which the public lands shall be disposed of, I am prepared to listen to it, and hear it, and if a better plan can be adopted, I will go for it. But for one, representing an old State, I am not going to suffer the public lands to go into the hands of private companies, or the States in which the lands lie; and be still, and not ask for any proportionate share to the old States, and show our modesty and diffidence in attempting to get justice. The bill which the President has returned to us was for the benefit of the people who are entitled to the highest claim, and to the kindest generosity and philanthropy of Congress. It was for this insane portion of the ceslui que trust, residing in every State of the Union, and it divided the lands so as to make it equal throughout the country. Still, I say that if the President vetoes all these measures, and establishes the old principle that the public lands belong to the people generally, and ought to be disposed of for the payment of the debt due by the Government, and for a diminution of taxes, it will all be right; but if that rule is not adopted, and favoritism and partiality shall prevail, I go for the distribution of the proceeds of the public lands, or the lands themselves, to all the States who are entitled to them. There is nothing wrong in that. But I come back to the point. The friends of the measure are most anxious to have it acted upon; but if the homestead is not to be discussed and decided before we decide on the veto, let us act upon the veto at once. There is no necessity for any delay. If it comes not within the principle of that veto, let us act upon this at once; but if the friends of the Administration think that it does, I am for postponing it. | |
| 48 | Mr. SHIELDS. I hope the honorable Senator from California will modify his motion so as to the consideration of the subject until two weeks from Monday. That may give us time to arrange both this measure and the other to which reference has been made. At all events, that allows little enough time. | |
| 49 | Mr. GWIN. The resolution offered by the Senator from Ohio is, I believe, the most appropriate form in which a motion on this subject can be made; and I am, therefore, willing to accept it as a substitute for mine, leaving the day blank, so that the Senate can determine on what day they will consider the subject. Monday week suits me very well, because I want to vote on this bill and I intend to be here, but I may not be here two weeks hence. Or, I am willing to take up the subject now, and proceed to act upon it at once. | |
| 50 | Several SENATORS. Say Monday. | |
| 51 | Mr. GWIN. I am opposed to taking up the message on next Monday, because I wished to have the coming week devoted to another subject, which I think is of more importance than this. My object is to have action upon the Pacific railroad bill during the ensuing week. I am willing, however, to take up this veto message now, and act upon it immediately, or I am willing to agree that it shall be postponed to Monday week, or even to two weeks from to-day, though I prefer Monday week for the reason that I shall be here then, while I may not be here two weeks hence. I am anxious that the other question to which I have alluded shall be disposed of. That, certainly, is not affected by this veto, because the message approves the principle of donating lands for railroad purposes. I refer to the Pacific railroad bill which is under my charge. That bill has been before the Senate for a long time, and it is absolutely important to me that I should have early action on it. | |
| 52 | I am ready to vote on the veto message now; I am prepared to act on it now, as much so as I shall be on Monday next. I presume that no discussion can take place upon it which will change a single vote here. We all know how we are going to vote now as well as we shall know hereafter. The very speeches that will be made on it can as well be made on the homestead bill when that comes up. I am anxious to progress with business; but I fear that if this subject be postponed until next Monday, it will become the political question of this session, and there is no telling when it will be decided. It will be mixed up with other questions, and thus business will be delayed. I am anxious to have it acted upon now, or to have it postponed, so as to give us longer time, in order to dispose of other important business. | |
| 53 | Mr. SHIELDS. The Senator from California, I understand, has accepted the resolution of the Senator from Ohio, leaving the day blank. | |
| 54 | Mr. CHASE. I have no objection to modify it, so as to leave the day blank. That is accepted by the Senator from California. | |
| 55 | Mr. SHIELDS. Then, I move to fill the blank by inserting Monday, the 22nd instant -- two weeks from next Monday. | |
| 56 | Mr. BELL. I should like to know from the Senator from Illinois, what is his specific object in moving this long postponement? Is it merely to take up and discuss the homestead bill, and pass it, if the Senate shall think proper to pass it? Is it proposed to postpone the consideration of the bill granting lands for the indigent insane, which the President has returned with his objections, for the purpose of ascertaining from the President himself, by his approval or veto of the homestead bill, what are his views of it? Is this postponement asked, in order that we may know what the opinion of the President is upon the homestead bill, before we proceed to reconsider the bill granting lands for the indigent insane? If that be the object, I have to suggest, that when the homestead bill comes up for consideration, it will most probably be pretty fully discussed in this body, and other business will be intervening occasionally, so that we cannot look for a final vote of the Senate on that bill in less than ten or twelve days after it is taken up. Then, suppose it should pass this body without amendment, and be sent to the President in the shape in which it came from the House; he then would have ten days within which to approve it, or return it with his objections if he should think proper to pursue that course. That would carry us beyond the period now proposed to be fixed for the consideration of the bill immediately before us. | |
| 57 | Again, if the Senate should think it expedient, as it is very likely they will, to make amendments to the homestead bill, those amendments will have to be transmitted to the other House for concurrence or rejection. This will probably delay that bill some days longer; how long I do not know. I consider, therefore, a postponement of the whole subject for two weeks not likely to answer the purpose of ascertaining the sentiments of the Executive in relation to the homestead bill. In other words, we shall be just as much in the dark two weeks hence in regard to what are intended to be the principles asserted by the message, or what limitations are intended to be extended in practice to the general principles laid down, as we are now. I am willing to agree to any postponement which gentlemen may consider necessary for the purpose of ascertaining the sentiments of the Executive, let it be for three or four weeks if necessary. | |
| 58 | These are considerations which I think are entitled to great weight now, before we proceed to fix a day when it is probable that we shall not attain the object intended in the mean time. If the intention is to ascertain whether the principles announced in the message are meant to be applied to the homestead bill, by a response from the President to our action on that bill, I am willing to postpone the consideration of this subject until that time shall arrive. | |
| 59 | Mr. CLAYTON. Mr. President, I am under a strong impression that the ancient practice of the Senate was, when a veto message came in upon a bill originating here, to proceed at once to the consideration of the subject, and to continue that consideration from day to day until the question should be settled. I do not mean to say by this that no sort of business whatever possibly could intervene. Something indispensably necessary might be occasionally taken up. But the impression which I have is, that the course which I have stated, has been the usual habit of the Senate. Certainly, if it has been, it must have originated from the impression derived from the words of the Constitution, that you shall enter the message on the Senate's Journal, and then proceed to the consideration of it as a matter entitled, in consequence of its importance, to priority over other measures. I know very well the language of the Constitution will admit of a different construction, but still, I think that a plain man, reading the Constitution as it stands, would be inclined to the impression that it is the duty of the House to which a Veto message may be transmitted, after entering it on its Journal, to proceed at once to its consideration, and certainly to do so within a reasonable time. I think this has been the uniform practice. Now, sir, in the case referred to by the honorable Senator from North Carolina, I take it for granted, from what he read from the Journal, that there was a debate on that veto message, as there has been on all veto messages that I ever heard of here, and of course it was postponed from day to day. | |
| 60 | Mr. BADGER. The Senator will allow me to say that there never was one word of debate upon it, until the day when it was disposed of. It was taken up, and postponed from day to day without debate. | |
| 61 | Mr. CLAYTON. Has the honorable Senator looked at the record of debate? Mr. BADGER. I have looked at the record of the debates. The first day was fixed, and then it was postponed until the next day, and so on, but there was no discussion until the Thursday after the Monday on which the veto came in. | |
| 62 | Mr. CLAYTON. Well, sir, I do not know anything in regard to that particular precedent to which the Senator has referred; but I have learned from another gentleman, that complaint was made at the time, in the other house, that the Constitution was disregarded in this very particular, in the Senate not proceeding to the consideration of the message immediately. However, sir, be this as it may, would it not be more respectful to the President, and is it not due to ourselves that we should go on within this measure, until we know the sense of Congress in regard to it? I do not mean to press the measure in hot haste, so as to prevent the Senate giving it a full and thorough consideration. It is entitled to that; but I think it is fairly entitled to precedence over other subjects: and whenever its consideration is called for by any member of the Senate, it ought, in pursuance of the spirit of the Constitution, to be taken up and considered. | |
| 63 | I do not suffer myself, in giving the opinion which I do in regard to this measure, to be influenced at all by other matters. I have nothing now to do with the homestead bill, or the Pacific railroad bill, or anything else, If this subject is to be taken up, I shall desire on some suitable occasion, when no other gentleman wishes the floor, to give my views briefly in relation to this veto message, but I am quite ready to go on with the consideration of it now, and it is my impression that it is our duty to do so. I am ready to vote upon it today. | |
| 64 | Mr. CLAY. So am I. | |
| 65 | Mr. DODGE, of Iowa. I concur entirely, Mr. President, with the view taken by the Senator from Delaware in reference to this question. I think the Senate owes it to itself, and to the dignity of the occasion, to pursue the course which he has indicated. I am decidedly averse to the proposition of my friend from Illinois, to postpone action on this question until another legislative measure to which he has alluded shall be passed upon by this body. Sir, no Senator, no created man, is more devotedly or ardently the friend of that measure to which he has alluded -- the homestead bill -- then I am. I am its friend, whether the President be so or not. I never connect one measure with another; nor do I wait for, or look to, Executive vetoes. I vote as becomes my position and my constituents, and the duty that I owe to them. | |
| 66 | I believe, then, that it is our duty now to proceed to the consideration of the President's message, and to reply, by affirmative or negative action, to the positions which he has taken in that message. For one, sir, I return him my thanks for the veto which he has sent here. I believe it is right in every word, phrase, and sentence. I furthermore believe that if he had not vetoed this bill, he would have been false to that party whose representative he was in the last presidential election-false to the resolutions of that convention which nominated him, and which unanimously resolved and re-resolved that the Democratic party was opposed to a distribution of the proceeds of the sides of the public lands. | |
| 67 | These are my views. I regard this bill, as I stated in some remarks which I submitted when it was passed by this body, as distribution in the worst phase that has come up here -- worse than ever the genius of Henry Clay conceived -- far more odious than that which John C. Calhoun, Silas Wright, and Thomas H. Benton, deprecated in the memorable session of 1841: -- ay, sir, a distribution, not of money from our Treasury, but of lampblack and rags, French assignats, from the Treasury of the United States, to the value of ten millions of acres of land to the sovereign States of the Union. | |
| 68 | Sir, the Senator from Vermont spoke yesterday of unclean, dishonorable, or corrupt legislation touching the public lands. My position as a representative from one of the new States, and my position upon the Committee on Public Lands, of which he is a member, requires that I should demand from him, in this presence, whether he meant to insinuate that any corrupt or dishonest bill had emanated from that committee, or from any one of the new States, so far as he is cognizant of those transactions? And if so, I demand of him that he now disclose, in its full length, and breadth, and extent, every particle of that corruption or unclean legislation. Sir, I make the demand with perfect respect to the gentleman. I do, sir, because of our kindly personal relations; but this is a great question, and his insinuation, if I may call it such, may affect individuals. I make the demand with perfect respect. I pause for a reply. | |
| 69 | Mr. FOOT. Mr. President, I have only to say that I have made no imputation of the sort which is now attributed to me; and the publication of my remarks, as taken down by the reporter, will show that an entire misconstruction has been placed upon them. I have cast no imputation upon the action of the committee of which I am a member; no imputation upon the action of this or of the other House; no imputation upon the new States of this Union. No man here, as I took occasion to state yesterday, has voted more liberally in favor of the application for appropriations for various purposes by the new States than myself, I had no reference to any past legislation -- upon the subject of the public lands. This, I think, is a sufficient disclaimer. | |
| 70 | Mr. DODGE, of Iowa. Perfectly so. | |
| 71 | Mr. FOOT. An entire misapprehension has been placed upon the remarks which I submitted. | |
| 72 | Mr. DODGE, of Iowa. In that misapprehension I am not alone, as the Senator knows, from the construction immediately placed on his language by the Senator from Illinois, -Mr. DOUGLAS;- and neither of us, as he knows, has any disposition to do him injustice, because of our personal respect for him. | |
| 73 | Mr. FOOT. Certainly not. | |
| 74 | Mr. DODGE, of Iowa. Mr. President, I said that I regarded this as one of the most fatal bills, one of the most ill-advised, looking at our complex but admirable system of Government, that has been passed by this or any other Congress. The Senator from South Carolina -Mr. BUTLER- was clearly right, when, on yesterday, he remarked that this bill had not been thoroughly discussed, or considered by the Senate. How long has it been since the Senator from Ohio, -Mr. CHASE,- who, notwithstanding his notions upon certain slavery questions, has some good views respecting State rights, defeated a kindred bill? Not more than two years since. What, then, were the provisions of this " Miss Dix bill," as it is called? Nothing more nor less than that New York should hold in the very heart of Iowa or California more than ten counties, in superficial area; to hold that land up at any price which she might choose to fix upon it; hold it there as Indian reservations or other reservations have been held in the center of some of the new States, to be increased sufficiently in amount to control the entire politics of the States where the lands lie. How long has it been since the respectable Senator from Kentucky -Mr. Underwood- moved his amendment to the Iowa railroad bill; that the States in which there were no public lands should, as States, be allowed to hold and within the borders of other sovereign States of this Union? How long is it since the provision originated for issuing this bank rag currency, stamped all over with pictures, to be issued at the Treasury? Only since it was shown in the discussion on Mr. Underwood's amendment to the Iowa land bill, but about two years since, that the proposition, if carried, would lead to domestic insurrection and bloodshed. Then originated, for the sake of getting rid of the difficulty of allowing one sovereignty to hold lands within another, this paper money invention, it is due to a respectable member of the other House, -Mr. Bennett, of New York,- to say, that his genius conceived this mode of getting rid of the difficulties of allowing one sovereign State to hold land within the heart of another, controlling its politics and disturbing its peace and harmony. | |
| 75 | Sir, without intending to make any imputation upon any human being, and least of all, upon the dignified Senator from Vermont, let me tell him that, without intending it -- and I know he does not intend it -- his bill would have produced scenes of speculation, scenes of disgrace, and of plunder, and pillage, such as this country has never witnessed but for the wise interposition of President Pierce's veto. It was, in my opinion, the commencement of a system which, if it had been prolonged, as it certainly would but for the death blow which the President has struck it, would have swallowed up the whole of the public lands, and have established a system of trading and peddling -- at Albany, Montpelier, and other seats of government, under the control of the dominant majority which has heretofore proved so fatal. These cords of French assignats would have been taken there to be squandered and bargained off by corrupt legislative majorities, to control and influence the politics of our distant States. The lands would be disposed of at those seats of government for political purposes. Cords of these bank bills would be carried of from the Treasury of the United States, and bought up at low prices by favorites, who would go and locate them on the public lands (rich as the Delta of Egypt) in Iowa, Wisconsin, Louisiana, and other new States. | |
| 76 | These were the provisions of the bill. It is a revival of that old system of selling lands at the courthouses and seats of government, which led to so much confusion. What then would become of the provision that the land should be applied to the support of the insane? Why, it would be disregarded, just as the sovereign States once disregarded your mandate, put in the shape of law, that they should send their members of Congress here by districts, instead of by States. The State of Mississippi was one of the States which refused to comply, and my friend from California reminds me that his State now elects her Representatives by general ticket, in the face of your law. So it would be in the disposition of this bank paper. The States would do as they please with it, and where is your power to coerce, or compel, or to alter their legislation? You have none. | |
| 77 | But, sir, so far as I am concerned, I never stop to inquire what the President will do with the homestead or any other bill. He has sent us here his veto of this bill. I am ready to record my vote on that veto. I am ready to proceed to that reconsideration of the bill which the Constitution requires. I hope we shall do so, according to the former usages of the Senate. I am unwilling to postpone its consideration for any longer time than is necessary for deliberation. Let us pursue the usual course on such occasions. I am anxious and desirous to accommodate my friend from California in anything, but I cannot agree to postpone the consideration of the question, with a view to action on other kindred subjects. | |
| 78 | Mr. SHIELDS. I do not wish to procrastinate this debate, but I have a word to say to my friend from Iowa. He seems, I think, to misunderstand the object of my proposed postponement of this measure. The object which I have in view is this: I look upon this as a very favorable occasion afforded to the Senate, to settle and establish some principle in relation to the disposition of the public domain. I regard this as the best chance, the fairest opportunity that has ever been offered to the Senate, since I became a member of the body, to fix some general principles in relation to the future disposition of the public domain. I am as anxious for that as any member of this body. That is my object; that is the reason I wish to postpone this measure. Now, when the honorable Senator from Delaware rises up in his place, and says he thinks it is respectful to the President, that we should not act on the measure at the present time, I should like to know if that honorable Senator entertains a higher respect for the Chief Magistrate, either personally or politically, than I do. I doubt whether any member of this body can say he does. I am not in the habit of making professions; but if any gentleman supposes or believes the object of the proposed postponement is disrespectful to the President, he does me as much injustice as be does the Chief Magistrate. I would be the last man in this body to do an act disrespectful to the President. | |
| 79 | Mr. DODGE, of Iowa. My friend wholly misunderstood me if he supposes that I attributed any such thing to him at all. I only spoke of the necessity of our pursuing the usual course. | |
| 80 | Mr. SHIELDS. I do not mean to say that the honorable Senator from Iowa intimated anything of the kind but the honorable Senator from Delaware secured to intimate, and actually did declare, that he thought it would be respectful to the President that we should act promptly on the message, even to-day. Now, even on that ground, considering that this is a great subject, and that the message embraces, if looked at properly, the future management and disposition of the public domain, I think it is more respectful to the President that we should take sometime to dwell upon this message, and meet it with that deliberation which is due to it. I think we should consider it in all its bearings, in reference to all its principles, not only upon the measure immediately before us, but upon the homestead bill, the Pacific railroad bill, and the grants of land to the new States for railroad purposes, in which the honorable Senator from Iowa takes so deep an interest. | |
| 81 | Now, sir, that is the reason why I have made this motion. It is my opinion, honestly entertained, that if we enter upon the discussion of this bill now, which will open the door to constitutional arguments, there is a farewell to the homestead bill, or to any other practical measure in relation to the public lands for this session. The Senator may be a friend of the measure, he may desire its passage; but I assure him that if he goes into this discussion now, he will defeat that measure as effectually as if he votes against it. That is my opinion now. Time will either verify it, or show that he is right. I say it is our duty to take up the homestead bill and consider it, and at the same time we shall be considering the bearing, and import, and future effect of the great measure now upon your table. | |
| 82 | Now, sir, with regard to the veto power, allow to say that I regard it as a fortunate power; and I think the exercise of it, even in this case, may be a fortunate matter. And why? Because it will bring us to review our action upon these subjects, and what is still better, it will bring us to establish some principles that will govern us in our future conduct in relation to this important matter-the disposition of the public domain. My opinion, however, is, that if we take up this message, and enter into a discussion of it now, we shall never see the homestead bill, nor any other practical bill relative to the public lands carried through Congress at this session. | |
| 83 | Mr. PETTIT. Mr. President, there seems to be a great anxiety, on the part of certain gentlemen here, to postpone the consideration of this bill, after they have each made some half dozen speeches upon it. I rise now, however, to give notice, that if the blank in the resolution is not filled as the Senator from Illinois proposes to fill it-for I understand the question is now upon the motion of that Senator to fill it with next Monday two weeks -- I shall move to fill that blank with next Monday, believing that propriety dictates that we should at an early day proceed to the consideration of this measure. While I am up, I wish to say that I intend to be heard at some length upon this veto message, and upon this bill. | |
| 84 | Mr. SHIELDS. The Senator has a speech, I suppose, and he wants to make it. | |
| 85 | Mr. PETTIT. The Senator from Illinois says that I have a speech, and I want to make it. Let me say to that Senator, that if he had been as industrious as I was last night, sitting up to one o'clock examining these questions, he would be as well, in fact better, prepared than I am for their discussion; for he has powers for mastering a subject with greater facility than I have. | |
| 86 | Mr. SHIELDS. Do not have that reported. -Laughter.- | |
| 87 | Mr. PETTIT. Well, sir, I have nothing to conceal from reporters. -Laughter.- I propose to discuss this question, as I have said, at some length. I propose to show that the power of this Government (even at the time of the acceptance of these grants while we were under the Confederacy) to dispose of the territory, of the soil, of the public land was unlimited; that it ever has been and now is unlimited; and that the unconstitutionality of this bill -- for that it is unconstitutional I have no doubt -- consists not in the granting, or giving away, or disposition of the soil, but it consists in two other things. Its unconstitutionality consists first in usurping the power and authority here to tell States how they shall dispose of the proceeds of the lands granted: and secondly, in directing them to account to us as their masters -- a thing that I entirely deny your power to do. | |
| 88 | The bill, for these two reasons, in my judgment, is unconstitutional; but not because it disposes of land generally, in any form or in any manner whatever. I take the broadest ground on that subject, and wish not to be misunderstood. The bill is objected to for another reason, not reaching the point of unconstitutionality, but as to its inexpediency and impropriety. That objection, in the language of the President, is that it makes us almoners, to take care of all the indigent, all the needy, and all the suffering; to usurp the offices of charity, the offices of humanity, that properly belong to the States. For that reason, if for no other, it ought, in my judgment, to have been vetoed. I fully and cordially approve of the result. | |
| 89 | I believe that a fair Construction and fair reading of the veto message will not put this veto upon the basis that we have not power to dispose of the lands, but upon the other ground which I have named, that we have not the power to direct how their proceeds shall be applied, and how, at what time, and under what circumstances, they shall be accounted for by the States to us. I shall endeavor, and I think I shall be able to show, when the proper time arrives, that the veto does not involve the principles of the homestead bill, and will not necessarily bring a veto from the President upon that bill. | |
| 90 | But, sir, I did not rise now to discuss the subject, nor to bring these questions to the consideration of the Senate, but to ask that some definite action be taken. It is due, as the Senator from Delaware has properly said, that we should at a reasonable and an early day, proceed to the consideration of this question. Nor do I think, its discussion will, by any means, occupy the whole residue of this session, and deprive us of the opportunity of considering other important measures. The very fact that important measures are behind this, and are to be considered after it, will shorten the deliberation and consideration on this bill, and for that very reason, if for no other, I should ask that an early day be assigned for its discussion. Then, if the blank be not filled, as proposed with Monday two weeks, I shall move to fill it with next Monday. | |
| 91 | Mr. WELLER. Mr. President, I think the experience of today has demonstrated that the best policy is to proceed at once to the consideration of the message from the President. I believe, with the Senator from Delaware, that such was the intention of the framers of the Constitution, when they used the phraseology which they employed in that provision of the Constitution which has reference to this subject. I know of no public considerations why we should not immediately proceed to entertain and dispose of this question. The fair, legitimate presumption, is that every Senator examined it before he originally gave his Vote. I know it was said yesterday by my friend from South Carolina, -Mr. BUTLER,- that this matter had not been considered-that it had not been discussed. It is true there was but a limited discussion in the Senate upon it at this session; but the presumption is, that every Senator investigated the question before he proceeded to decide upon it. For myself, I may say that there never has been a bill introduced in this body for which I was so anxious to give my vote as this bill, which has been vetoed by the Executive. It was a bill which appealed to all the sympathies of my heart. It was one which appealed to all the warm and generous impulses of my nature; but, upon calm and patient investigation of the important principles involved, I dared not, as an American Senator, with the obligations of an oath to support the Constitution resting upon me, give my vote for it. I was therefore reluctantly compelled to vote against its passage. | |
| 92 | The principles announced by the Executive in this message, are those by which I have been governed since my entrance into public life. I am a strict constructionist. I do not believe in that latitudinous construction of the Constitution which invests Congress with power and authority to do whatever the "common defense and general welfare," in their judgment, may demand. That class of politicians has usually been styled expediency politicians. I have been compelled to apply the constitutional test to all questions upon which I am compelled to vote; and the application of that test to this bill compelled me to vote against it. | |
| 93 | Now, sir, I say that we have been discussing this question today, and we may as well proceed with that discussion. There are some important bills that are yet to be disposed of. There is the one which has been alluded to by my colleague, and, for personal reasons, connected with himself, I am exceedingly desirous that it shall be acted upon within the next two weeks. Then, again, there is the homestead bill. Some Senators think the general principles enunciated in this message cover that bill. That is my opinion. If all the principles announced in the communication made to us yesterday be correct, the homestead bill is a violation of the Constitution. But, so far as that point is concerned, I desire to remain uncommitted until I can hear the discussion, until I can hear, particularly, my friend from South Carolina, who is almost the father of strict construction. | |
| 94 | Mr. President, why can we not proceed to discuss this question now? We are in the habit of adjourning over, oftentimes, from Thursday to Monday. This is a very bad practice. It has been introduced by my friend from North Carolina; and such has been the unbounded confidence I have usually reposed in him, that I have very generally followed his example, and voted for all motion to adjourn over. Now, I propose to reform, and to devote Friday and Saturday to business, instead of visiting the Departments; and I must say that the Senators who make that excuse have no business at the Departments at all -Laughter.- Nobody has any business there except the representatives of the new States, and they have more than they can attend to. I know that it is so in regard to myself. I am sure that I have more business there than I can attend to. My friend from North Carolina has usually urged that as a pretext; and I venture the prediction that he does not have business at the Departments once a month. -Laughter.- | |
| 95 | Mr. BADGER. Will my friend allow me to state that I have made the motion for that very reason. I have no business there; and I thought therefore, the motion had better come from me rather than put any of my friends from the new States to the necessity of making an application for their personal convenience. -Laughter.- | |
| 96 | Mr. WELLER. I knew the motion was dictated by some benevolent motive on the part of the Senator, but I did not know that it was out of personal consideration to me. -Renewed laughter.- Now, why can we not proceed at once to the consideration of this question? | |
| 97 | Mr. BRODHEAD. We are considering it. | |
| 98 | Mr. WELLER. The Senator from Pennsylvania says we are considering it. I do not know that we are considering it. We are undoubtedly discussing it, but discussion does not always lead to consideration. Some speak without any consideration. | |
| 99 | Mr. BADGER. We are talking about it. | |
| 100 | Mr. WELLER. I shall vote against the postponement to next Monday week. I think it is due to the President, it is due to ourselves, it is due to the country, that we should proceed at once to dispose of this question. I believe it was the design of the Constitution that we should proceed at once to reconsider a bill which is vetoed by the President. The effect of the veto is simply this: It is, in effect, a motion to reconsider, and that motion to reconsider puts the bill in a position where it requires a vote of two thirds to pass it. Does any body believe that two thirds of the Senate will ever vote to pass this bill? There is not a Senator here who believes it. Then why continue a long discussion on the question when no practical good can result from it, and when it is known in advance, that a majority of two thirds cannot be obtained in a full Senate for its passage ? I undertake to say, upon a nice calculation which has been made by a friend of mine, who is "strong" in figures, that there cannot be even a majority of this Senate in favor of this bill, and that upon a full vote there will be thirty-one Senators found recording themselves against it. Then, wherefore postpone it for two weeks, when you know in advance that the bill can never become a law? It is one which, in my judgment, ought never to become a law. I know, sir, that it is one upon which strong appeals have been made to the sympathies of Senators; but that is a very unsafe guide of action. A Senator had better always keep his eye upon the power of attorney under which he acts-that is, the Constitution. The people never intended that we should travel beyond the Constitution; but whenever we are in a charitable mood, let us feel in our own pockets, and not in Uncle Sam's. That is the way to show our charity and benevolence; not by a violation of the Constitution, not by transcending the authority vested in us by that written instrument which constitutes our power of attorney, but let us show it by applying our hands to our own purses to relieve the distressed and the indigent. | |
| 101 | Mr. President, I do not know whether, if the discussion is to be continued, I shall debate this question further. I have not much to say about it. I have not spoken now because I desired to hear myself speak, but because there were other Senators who had plunged into this debate, and I endeavored to show that we had better go on with it now. If we do go on with it now, and if my friend from North Carolina shall have the temerity to move an adjournment over, I give him notice now that I shall abandon him, and vote against the motion. | |
| 102 | Mr. GWIN. I will withdraw the resolution so that we may now take up the message. | |
| 103 | Mr. PETTIT. Then I move to postpone the further consideration of the subject until Monday week. | |
| 104 | The PRESIDENT. The Senator from Ohio has a proposition before the Senate. | |
| 105 | Mr. GWIN. I accepted the proposition of the Senator from Ohio, leaving the day blank, and therefore I can withdraw it. I withdraw it, because I wish the discussion to go on now, in order that we may devote next week to another subject. | |
| 106 | Mr. MALLORY. As I understand, the motion now before the Senate is to postpone the further consideration of the subject until Monday week. | |
| 107 | The PRESIDENT. There is no motion before the Senate, as the proposition of the Senator from California has been withdrawn. | |
| 108 | Mr. MALLORY. Then I move to postpone the further consideration of the subject until Monday next. | |
| 109 | The PRESIDENT. The question is upon that motion. | |
| 110 | Mr. MALLORY. Mr. President, yesterday upon a simple motion to print, which seemed to me a matter of course, a debate sprang up which involved the entire policy of the country upon the subject of the public lands. It involved a great many other things, and occupied the body throughout the remainder of the day. Now, upon a proposition to postpone, we are again discussing not only the principles upon which the public lands are and ought to be administered, but we are discussing the principles of bills which have already been passed and determined. I am in favor of going on with the discussion of this bill now, because we are discussing it, and will continue to discuss it. Every gentleman who rises upon the floor proclaims that he is not discussing it, but that the time for debate will come, and that he will be prepared, at that time, to debate the question fully. I think, therefore, we had better take it up now, and commence the regular discussion immediately. Though I have made a motion to postpone until Monday, I am in favor of going on with the discussion now, if we can; but I am for a postponement to Monday next, in preference to any other postponement which can be made. | |
| 111 | But, sir, one reason given for the postponement by the honorable Senator from Illinois, was that since the period when he fist became a member of this body, there never has been so favorable an opportunity for taking up and establishing a general system for the administration of the public lands, as the present. It is admitted upon all sides that no more important subject can come before this body than the establishment of some just and equal policy, satisfactory to all, in reference to the administration of the public lands. The honorable Senator from Kentucky -Mr. THOMPSON- depicted to us the other day, humorously, how this subject enters into almost every presidential canvass; and, as was said by him, every man who comes to these halls comes with some predisposed policy in reference to these lands, and yet he finds himself in opposition to a large number of his brother Senators and Representatives. | |
| 112 | Well, sir, if this be so important a measure as the Senator from Illinois supposes, why should we discuss it indirectly? He recommends us to take up the homestead bill first, and he thinks that by discussing that bill, we shall obtain a knowledge of the subject now before us; or, in other words, that we should discuss the merits of this subject indirectly through the merits of another. Why, sir, the merits of this measure involve the merits of the homestead bill. It comes necessarily before us; and if we determine, by a large majority, against the principles involved here, it will influence many, as a matter of course, to go against the homestead bill. If you were to put both in a fair position, and ask which was entitled to priority, from the argument of the Senator from Illinois, I would say, as a matter of course, that we should take up and dispose of this subject first. | |
| 113 | Mr. President, it is apparent to me from a little inquiry and comparison around the Chamber, that this veto is perfectly safe. Two thirds of this body will not vote against it. I hardly think any discerning member of the Senate can come to any other conclusion. Then why not take it up now? Why postpone it? As to the matter of disrespect to the Executive, I think it will be no disrespect to him whether we postpone it or not. Many of the friends of the Administration, I see, are for the postponement, and it would be exceedingly unkind to suppose, for an instant, that they mean the slightest shadow of disrespect to the President. But, sir, a respect for the important measure itself, the necessity which the Senator from Illinois has pointed out, for the establishment of a great policy for the whole country, should induce us to discuss and consider the subject now. | |
| 114 | Mr. SEWARD. Mr. President, I shall not make an apology for not discussing this question upon the motion to postpone. I have waited all the morning in hopes that there might be a question taken; and I seconded the motion of the honorable Senator from Florida for it postponement to Monday; but, to my great surprise, he has come out in an elaborate speech against the motion itself. | |
| 115 | Mr. MALLORY. I shall vote for the motion. I was giving my preconceived opinions; but I made the motion to postpone until Monday, and I intend to vote for it. | |
| 116 | Mr. SEWARD. Then, all I have to say is, that I prefer to have the subject postponed until Monday, in order that we may have a discussion of the merits of the question itself -- a deliberate and considerate one-a discussion which will enlighten us. It is very apparent that this sporadic, irregular discussion, bringing in everything foreign to the subject-matter, is not calculated to fit us for a deliberate review of the question before us; and, as there are but two legislative days between this and Monday, I hope it maybe agreed on all hands that we drop this question for to-day, take up what other business we have before us -- and there is enough of it -- and come here prepared, on next Monday, to give this subject a considerate, deliberate, regular, ordinary, and orderly disposition; so that, while we are discussing it, we may avow that we are doing so, and that the responsibility may rest on each member to do it with such deliberation, candor, and ability as he can bring to bear upon it. | |
| 117 | Mr. GWIN. I withdrew my motion to postpone, for the purpose of bringing up the discussion now. I believe we can discuss and dispose of the question now as well as hereafter. It is well known to the Senate that I wish to get another bill, which I deem of great interest, before the body for action. My object is to get this subject disposed of until that can be acted upon. Therefore, as a test question, to see whether we are to have any more talking on this subject now or not, I move to lay on the table the motion of the Senator from Florida, to postpone the consideration of this bill until next Monday. | |
| 118 | Mr. BADGER. That motion carries the bill with it. | |
| 119 | Mr. GWIN. No, sir; I think not. That is a separate question. My motion is, that the motion of the Senator from Florida lie on the table. | |
| 120 | Mr. HUNTER. I rise to a point of order. Does not that carry the bill with it? | |
| 121 | The PRESIDENT. Certainly it does. | |
| 122 | Mr. GWIN. Then I withdraw my motion. | |
| 123 | Mr. SHIELDS. I hope we shall go on with the debate now. | |
| 124 | The PRESIDENT. The question is on the motion of the Senator from Florida, to postpone the further consideration of this subject until Monday next. | |
| 125 | Mr. GWIN. Is it in order to move to strike out "next Monday," and insert "Monday week?" | |
| 126 | The PRESIDENT. It is not in order. | |
| 127 | Mr. GWIN. I call for the yeas and nays upon the motion of the Senator from Florida. The yeas and nays were ordered; and being taken, resulted-yeas 29, nays 20; as follows: | |
| 128 | YEAS -- Messrs. Atchison, Badger, Bayard, Bell, Benjamin, Bright, Brown, Butler, Clay, Dixon, Dodge of Wisconsin, Dodge of Iowa, Douglas, Evans, Fitzpatrick, Foot, Hunter, Johnson, Jones of Iowa, Mallory, Morton, Norris, Pettit, Seward, Slidell, Toombs, Toucey, Wade, and Williams -- 29. | |
| 129 | NAYS -- Messrs. Allen, Brodhead, Chase, Clayton, Cooper, Dawson, Fish, Geyer, Gwin, James, Jones of Tennessee, Pratt, Rusk, Sebastian, Shields, Stuart, Sumner, Thompson of Kentucky, Walker, and Weller -- 20. | |
| 130 | So the motion was agreed to. | |