The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1841-05-01

I This II wholly mistake, or reinstatement. Inc
Journal of the 18th Of March shows no such question
Nv. don the LIST Of December, only few days be-
fore the meeting of the Hartford Convention, he yo-
ted against bill to provide additional revenue for de-
fraying the expenses OF the Government and main
tanning the public credit"
This reference TO the Hartford Convention is mere
" for effect and make unfair and false impressions,
as il is known TO all, who not wilfully ignorant
that Mr. Webster had nothing TO do with the Hart
The opponents of Mr.. Webster have been, again
and again challenged in vain to the proof that he was
in any manner connected with the Hartford Conven-
ton, its origin, or proceedings. No such proof has
been or can be presented. And yet the charge, SO
falsely made and so often refuted, continues to be re-
peated.
As for the rest of the fourth allegation, it only APP
pears that Mr. Webiter was in very small minority
against bill laying taxes various articles, to some
(which there very serious objections, how
evemportant the object, while money coudlbe raised
in other modes.
This bill proposed direct tax upon various articles
II laid duties upon sales ut auction the postage OF
letters on licenses to retail wines licenses to retail
spirituous fquors and foreign merchandise on carr
ages for the conveyance of persons and on plate mar
ness sc. II is but fair to ascribe Mr.. Websters vote
against this bill to his objection to the form of some OF
the taxes because the Journal shows that few days
before he voted in the affirmative proposition to
increase other taxes. t... .,.. .Es..8
The yeas and nays given in the Journal show that
the vote the tax bill referred to was not by any
means test of parties or party vote-most of the
leading Opposition members having voted in the affr-
native. The Journal of the 10Th of October, 1914,
shows that Mr.. Webster proposed and voted for some
of the provided for by this bill but, as ne dsap-
proved Of other taxes contained in IT, he voted against
the whole bill.
" son the 10th, he voted to postpone indefinitely
bill authorizing the President Of the United States
to call upon the several States for their respective quo
of militia to defend the frontier against INVASION
q T. Oh L.. .s...t sbag
The answer to these stands on the same ground as
those to some of the preceding. The reason IS not
given but the debate shows a reason fair and honest
at least whatever may be thought of its strength and
Tending the country against repelling invasion, or
against executing the laws. he was as ready to de-
cnd the country the warmest patriot, and we have
il stated what is doubt true that when Ports
mouth, the town in which ne then lived, was suppos
ed to be in danger of Immediate attack by the enc
my, he was placed, on the nomination of John Lang
don the head of committee raised for its defence
In Mr. Websters speech, 2lst March, 1885, in reply
to Mr. Calhoun, he challenged that gentleman TO
show that he gave unpatrotc vote during the
war; or at any other time. He admitted that, aDith
Mr.. Calhoun, he had preferred to carry on the war
with England the ocean, and had indicated that pre-
ference by his votes, had Mr.. Calhoun and others
It is well known that the occasion referred TO, Mr.
Calhoun who has served with Mr.. Webster for nearly
thirty years in Congress- and who well knew what his
votes were during the war, was perfectly silent when
this challenge was made
VII. I" He also voted against bill to provide addi-
tonal revenue for the support Of the Government and
the public credit and also against appropriation for
rebuilding the Capitol, which had been destroyed by
| the enemy"
The unfarness and falsity of this charge shown
by Examination of the record The Journal shows
the following legislation in respect to rebuilding the
Capitol. 1t is to be remembered, however, that IN
consequence of domestic calamity, Mr.. Webster did
not take his seat in Congress in 1914 until the 18th
Il. a. Ca Eicl
New York, distinguished friend of the admin'stra-
ton of Mr. Madison, moved for committee to in
qure into the expectancy of removing the seat of Go
vernment during the session Of Congress to place OF
better security and less Inconvenience" The motion
prevailed ayes 70, noes 81. This was not party
vote the record shows.
On the Sd October the committee reported " that it
insrpedien at this time to remove the seat of go
vernment," but Mr.. Fisk himself moved to amend
the report by striking out the word "inezpedieni"
and substituting expedient" On this motion the
vote stood GO to GO, and the Speaker Mr.. Cheyes)
declaring himself for the amendment it was adopted,
and the amended resolution referred to commit
tee Of the Whole House.
October 4. The order Of the day on this subject
being called for, Mr. Newton moved its indefinite
postponement. This was negatived: yeas 81, nays
q, and not party vote, as the Journal shows
been reported back to the House from the Committee
Of the Whole House, was taken up and on the ques-
ton to agree to it, the vote stood ayes ~ and "a noes
So the report recommending the removal OF the seat
of Government from Washington to some more con-
venient place agreed to, and committee was APP
pointed to bring in a bill.
October 13. Mr. Fisk reported bill for the tenn
porary removal Of the Seat Of Government
On the 18th October Mr.. Webster took his seat for
the first time for that session. and this day the ques
ton was taken upon motion to reject the BILL and it
was negatived ayes rs, noes 10, Mr. Webster voting
in the negative; that is to say, he voted against the
rejection Of bill, brought in by leading friend Of the
,;yiot nj viii had hepn in M
stage of it, party vote providing for the removal Of
the Seat of Government from Washington. The
bill not being rejected, was read second time and
committed to Committee of the Whole House. Being
reported back from the committee to the House, II was
moved to amend the bill by inserting section which
provided that the Presidents House and the Capi-
ol should be rebuilt on their former sites in the city
of Washington, which was rejected without a divi-
sion
In the Committee of the Whole the bill had been
amended, and one Of the amendments was to name
the place to which the Government should be removed
(The place does not appear upon the Journal, but Is
believed to have been Lancaster, Pennsylvania - :.
The question then being put upon the engrossment OF
the BILL it passed in the negative, ayes "a noes 80
And SO the bill was lost. Mr.. Webster voted in the
Affirmative This was not party vote; the North
ern men generally voted to remove the Government to
Lancaster, and the Southern were against it.
The next proceeding that appears upon this sub
ject took place the both October when Mr.. Lewis
of Virginia, (whom Mr.. Jefferson called the residuary
legatce of all the federalism Of the State of Virginia.
moved for committee to inquire into the expediency
of rebuilding the Presidents House and CAPITOL and
the necessary expenses for that purpose The resou-
ton was adopted without objection, and committee
appointed, which reported the 2lst November and
on that day Mr. Lewis obtained leave to bring in bill
making appropriation for repairing rebuilding in
the city of Washington.
1t does not appear that any further proceedings took
place in the House in regard to the bill introduced by
| Mr.. Lewis; but on the 9th of February a bill from
the Senate to provide for the rebuilding of the Pre-
sident's House and the Capitol, being under consde-
ration in the House of Representatives, moved
that no part of the money should be expended until
the President laid before Congress report stating the
principles upon which the Capitol, Presidents House,
and the Post Office should be rebuilt with estimate
of the cost This motion was rejected Then Mr..
Stanford of North Carolina, ardent supporter Of
the Administration moved that the bill be recon-