Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1836-02-18

% many inconsistent are each and every re
ution ct the ote and might absove Inc from further
trouble, than to confront this of
and To leave the whole die of eOch other condenna
ton but viii not limit myself entirely To this brief
TASK. will expand little; and, ionching at n few
points, this circle OF Inconsistencies will show what
hrs SAID To be strictly true, namely, that the Senate
,he responsible party, first for the loss of the three mil
mons; secondly, tor the loss OF the for LITIGATION bill and
n"dy Tor the Impending visit of the French fleet, and
Tor the demand for explanation and apology.
In presenting the Senate the responsible party for
tnese losses, and their consequence had The honor
TO do IN my introductory remarks, gentlemen have as.
sumed that had indicted the Senate. and thereupon,
inconnentiy, great indignation has been prepared and
exploded Certainly never intended TO ndict the Sc
nate ior this matter, but simply historical
Tact; but since gentlemen will have prefer in
octieh urre rs something, ut least, they must allow
me they must allow elementary conception of
TIE consutsna mode Ut trying people in our cuuntry
TOT nave not proceeded parte; have not indicted
the senate behind their backs; tried them when alb
sent nor condemned them unheard; denied them
Tie privilege OF selideience; considered their
renee us breach OF my privileges, insult my
dignity All this they must allow me: aud then there
rs something else which be allowed me- and that is
that have shown myself far capable to conduct an
indictment, as ot 10 be TUNED of for
IN the venue-For, at common law when A mortal
wound is given in cosnty, and the wounded man
dies IN another, the sayes may be tried and hanged
either county; in this case, where the iortihcaon
pi received It's death-wound in this chamber, and died
OF that wound in the House of the kill
ers OF The bill may lawfully be brought justice here.
Inc question before the Senate has two branches
each very distinct from the other, and not to be con-
founded in debate, nor involved i'm one confused ,,c
SION The first branch Of the question as to the loss Of
The three million appropriations the second branch of
refers to the loss OF the bill which was attached 1t
ismy purpose 10 treat these branches separately and 10
show that the three million appropriation was The main
ioss and the bill the subodina and incidental oss and
that the Senate the OF both LOSSES avowedly
III the principal case, and proyeably in the incidental
one.
say the three millions was the main loss and es.
tablsh that assertion 6Ist from its amount Tor it was
three times the amount of The other and from
/
tngent danger. 1t III these words The sam of
three millions IF dollars expended an achOe or i'm pt
under ne direction oMe President che United States, for
e military and haUnt Sercce iReiuig Fertilization and
ordnance, ana increase ~ Tie Raoy; yTODided
fENDirURES SHALL BIZ RENDERED. NECESSARY FOR THE
DEfENCE COUNTRY PRIos no THE MKT MEETING
OF CONGRESS-. These wore the words. The Senate re-
Jected the appropriation worded and the rejection
stood IN France the solemn declaration of the Senate
that they would not provide for the defence the country
although necessary before they met again 1t is
that Senators thr bosons and find reasons
tor their vote OF rejection the record bears fact as
nave stated lit contingent appropriation for the
cessary defence Of the country and reiecton and 10
the French 1t could appear nothing more nor less than
rs refusal to sustain the policy OF the President and
aS the final act which put The seal upon all those sperches
winch had justified France and condemned the chief of
our Government.
In this light appeared the French and the effect
was instantaneous and decisive with them. 1t induced
them TO change their tone and oboldened them to take
higher ground; and the Senator tom Pennsy (r
Buchanan) has well shown, by clear narration of facts
aud by close collation. circumstances tat 10 ,b,s
most amentube vote of the Senate we are indebted for
all the French measures So offensive to feelings
the legislative demand for expanations-the dictated
apoogy,-and the fleet tha, Is SEMI TO observe us-
Thus, the loss OF the three millions was tile main loss
ooh ior lis amount and lis character, and for the moral
enect WHICH refusal to vote money for the defence
OF the country even though necessary that Gei@ace
before Congress met again and for this loss the Sc.
nate is incontesbiy and avowedly responsible There
IL no dispute this point. The House OF Repre-
sentatlves passed 1.-THE Senate rejected it-and
there was an end of it, Whatever room there may be
io conteshng the responsibility OF losing the iortfc,
ton Di there none for coniesng the loss of this
millions, which has done all the mischief Conscious Of
inns, the gentlemen OF the Opposition lay all their
strength laboriOus arguments and minute details in
vmdIcating themselves the loss of the Fertilization
bill, while the infinitely important loss OF the three
millions Is slightly run over with admission and JUS
titcaton: The Senate admits it made that loss and JUS
Tines 1t but what Justification First, because was
not recommended by the President; He1t because il was
not SPECIFIC, and was, therefore, unconstitutional and
Tdy, because II put dangerous power in the hands of
the President These the three points of defence
and let us briefly examine them
j. As to the want of the Presidents recommendation
mat is true in fact but futile in import The President
did not recommend the three millions the Senate but
the House OF Representatives did; and it was case i'm
winch Their recommendation should he potena than
ms 1t was money bill, and the House OF Representa-
yves, as the immediate representatives. of the people are
the especial guardians of the puse-a tax bills zqnsf or
gInac there and by consequence all large
the expendituJ of revenue being so nearly akin TO
me imposition OF n tax, and often involving it-come
with peculiar p )prety from that branch of Congress
III 'a" 10 sly mat thls appropriation was suddenly
adopted III the House Of Representatives upon tile mo
lion of a meiner. Granted. But when IL was adouted
IL was no longer the proposition OF the member but the
act OF the House, and the Senate with all the
cIaIihs TO respectful consideration which is due 10 The
act OF the whole body. But it is supposed that the
PRESIDENT gave private information of his wishes TO
some OF his friends and withheld il from others
ana tIat the effect was to eDuap them. He Mr. Ben.
ton, presumed that this was all a mistake II was
not ~ unison with the Presidents character, which
was that OF extreme ankness and not consonant
with the tact III hs case for he had never heard
word OF the Presidents wlsles--he who as Chairman
OF The Senate . Committee of Military Affairs and as
friend TO the Administration, would have had a right
10 NE very hrst nloroalon where there design
ed discrimination between friends, had never heard Of
The matter one way OF another His FIRST know rdpc of
the thTee millions vas from De reading the Score.
tafy table. lie had heard of the Presidents
wishes, never heard Of Mr.. Cambreengs notice in the
House Of Representatives never heard of his motion
The three millions coming until announced in the
SENATE: anu 81 nc had known Of the Presidents wishes
he should not have communicated them to the Sen
ate, IL being unParlamentary and breach Of the PRIV.
icges oil the body TO do The President cUniiuun.
Gates to the Senate rcsponsbly through message and
not irrespOnsiby, through member and report his
opinion upon bills influence the action Of the Con
gfess, Is irregular and supplementary and reprehc
sioe breach Ut the privileges OF tie body; aud such tie
law OF Parliament lie should suppose then that what
ever might have Happened in communicating lis wishes
20 soine, and not 10 others, vuFey accidental Ger
tainly, If any one had right think himself sighted
he had; for ~ his double character OF Chairman OF the
Committee Military Aiaifs and friend 10 the A,l,ui
nstraion, he should have stood 6rs on the Senntra
list for The lnsidiOus communication
As TO TIE unconstiluiiOnaltY Of the appropriations
because not specific Mr. would not travel over geud
Which Ind been we'll occupied aud fully explored
aud well said that the Constitution had but two pro-
the subject Of appropriations. first that fs