The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-03-14


the demand was not taken
And the question on the resolution was then
taken, and decided in the negauVe-aye' o'' HUGE
SO, two-thirds not voting in the affirmative, the
resolution was rejected
| A personal EXPLANATION.
i Mr.. BAYLY moved that the House resolve itself
into Committee of the Whole on the state Of the
Union; but Withdrew the motion at the request Of
| Mr. YANCEY, who as ked leave TO make per-
| sona explanation.
! And the leave having been granted
! Mr.. YANCEY said that yesterday, in the heat of
debate, and when somewhat irritated by having had
an MUST charge made upon him, he had retorted
| by denominating those members Of the democratic
party who advocated the expenditure of public
money for "a general system Of internal improve
ments," as pretended democrats" | regret, sir
| Continued Mr. Y.,) that used the phrase. re-
greet that too frequently in the excitement Of gen.
eral debate, language that reflection cOnylnces
me were better left unused. IL is my pride, II
| by il | do injustice, TO recufy it, In this instance,
as had standard by which to Judge of the truth
| Of the remark made, should not have made 1t.
| However much may regret and dlsapproye OF the
course Of democrats here in sustaining bill which
| | must think clearly violates both the constitution
and the resolutions Of the Baltimore convention, II
| is not for me 10 Judge of the motives which lead
them to do so, or Of the sincerity with which they
advocate the democratic platform. That must
leave 10 their own CONSEQUENCES thoH uou anu lheH
| Mr. YANCEY renewed the motion of Mr.. BAY
LII, but waived il MR. BAYLr assenting) at the re-
| quest Of
Mr.. DOUGLASS, who (under leave Of the
House, was understood to say
| will only say that if used the word "pretend-
ed" democrats, do not think used IT. but
| Mr.. YANCEY. used it.
| Mr. DOUGLASS. If did-though | do not
think did equally Withdraw it.
| RIVERS AND HARBoRs.
| The question having then been taken on the mo-
ton of Mr. BAYLr, and decided in the affirmative,
the House again resolved itself into Committee Of
| the Whole on the state of the Union, (Mr. THOMAS
SMITH, of Ind ana, in the chair and resumed the
consideration of the bill making appropriations for
the improvement OF certain harbors and rivers, and
the amendments thereto pending.
Mr.. JOHN w. HOUSTON (who was entitled
to the hoor) addressed the committee briefly. He
did intend he said) TO enter into discussion OF
| the various topics which had been introduced into
| the debate. His main object TO explain the
propriety and eXpedlency Of making certain amend
ments which he desired to have read for lnforma-
ton, and which he intended at the proper time TO
offer. They were read as follows:
Amend the 77h and 18th lines which contain an appro
Priation Of $4,000 for improving the hIrbOr at New
Castle Delaware by striking out the said sum Of Sl5y
| and inserting in lieu thereof $4,000.
Also amend the sls and s4i lines Of the bin which
tain an sPPToPnanSn Of $1,000 IOr completing the DelS
| and inserting in lieu thereof 100000,
There were several other important points (Mr.
| II. said) upon the waters Of the Delaware bay and
river which had been entirely overlooked in the pro-
visions Of this bill, which, in his judgment, were
emnently deserving of the attention Of the commit
tee and Of the general government, and to pro-
vide for which he should offer amendments, if
he could fatter himself with the slightest hope
that thoy would beentertaned. Mr. II. then
proceeded to make brief statement Of facts
| in relation to the eXpediency Of the amend
ments he had proPoscd; and urged their claims up
on the fair and impartial if not favorable considera-
| ton of the committee
| Mr. BAKER gave notice of his intention TO offer
| an amendment, making an appropriation Of SIS, 900
| for the Illinois river. He did not propose, he said
to discuss the constitutional and party questions that
| had been drawn into this debate He was fortu-
| nately Of that poor and despised company whose
opinions on this question were well known. For
uinRely he did not need TO refer to the opinions Of
leading men, and attempt TO torture them into an
argument favorable TO the one side the other to
Justify his vote. He in favor of the largest con-
sruction Of the constitution in relation TO internal
| improvements, and more especially, a western
man. he was able to justify his vote before the peo-
| pie of the country and before his own immediate
constituents. But he would ask the attention Of the
| committee to matter which referred to his imme-
date constituents, and 10 the people Of Illinois; for
| he expected to do them no real, practical good on
this floor, other than he might be able to get the
| attention of the committee to the amendment he had
proposed.
| Mr. B. then proceeded briefly to explain the OBJ
jcct Of the amendment, and to urge its claims upon
| the consideration of the committee.
! Mr.. BAYLY obtained the foor and yielded to
| Mr.. seldom, who gave notice of his intention,
when in order, TO offer an amendment.
| Mr.. BAYLY, in the few remarks he desired to
submit to the committee should say nothing of the
! Oregon question: which he thought had been i'm
properly lugged into this debate. Declining also to
enter into the discussion of other incidental topics
| which had been introduced he proceeded briefly to
the consideration Of the subject before the House.
Il In his opinion, this government had power to
construct internal Improvements either with or with
out the consent of the States. This government
was one of delegated powers, possessing powers
except those expressly delegated or absolutely ne
cessary to carry into effect expressly delegated pow
means of delegated powers. Understanding
the constitution in this way, he had looked through
its provisions in vain for solitary that could
sanction this system of internal improvements by
the general government
As clear as he was upon the constitutional ques-
ton, he was still more so upon the question Of ex-
pediency. Not only was the power to construct
internal improvements not delegated, and not de-
signed to be delegated to this government, but i,
was expressly refused; and it great stroke OF
wisdom that this power was withheld. This Con-
gress, from its very composton-from the extent
of country over which it legslates, would be ut.
terly incompetent to legslate wisely upon the
subject The States, with their superior al.
vantages Of an intimate knowledge Of the coun.
try, with the restraints Of direct taxation for the
supply of their respective treasures, &C., had not
withstanding, been plunged into bankruptcy and
oppressive Indebtedness and the effects of this sys-
tenn, if adopted by the general government, would
be in a greater degree disastrous.
MIR. B. touched upon two other points; and
having thus briefly disposed of the subjec, immedi
ately under consideration, in reply to the speech Of
Mr.. HUDSON in reference to the effect which the
modihcauon or repeal of the English corn laws will
nave upon the agricultural interests of our country
he entered into minute investigation of statistic,
and facts in exposure of what he considered tho fall
acious arguments and the erroneous conclusions &c
| which the gentleman from Massachusetts had ar
, rived.
This speech, like those of other gentlemen, will
be given hereafter.
Mr.. STEWART then obtained the floor, and ad
dressed the committee during the hour, He directed