The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1851-03-03

/
Mr.. WALKER said that he would consider this
test vote. II the bill was not taken up, he would
| regard il as defeated
Mr.. JONES suggcsted that the best way to expe-
dite the passage of the appropriation bills, was to
"a he up this BILL and pass il without debate.
Mr. CLAY hoped the friends Of the bill would in
sst on the consideration of the bill at this time II
wns now with this bill
Mr.. HALE had voted to lay the motion to take
up the bill the table II taking up this bill would
defeat the army and navy appropriations, he did
not know but that he had voted wrong. He would
like to defeat these bills long enough to reduce
them about seventy 1--WE per cent
MIR. DOUGLAS would vote to take up the bill
in order to state Ills views and in the hope that the
bill would be put in such shape that it could be
passed.
Mr.. ATCHISON had voted for laying the mo-
ton on the table, and would vote against taking
the bill up, for the that he did not believe 1t
could be putt in shape to receive his vote.
The question then put on taking up the bill,
and decided in the advantageous 81, nays 25-
as follows
YEAS.-Mcssrs. Badger. Baldwin, Bell, Borland.
Bright Cass, Chase, Clay, Cooper, Davis OF Mas
sachusetts, Dayton, Dickinson. Dodge of Wiscon-
sin, Dodge oflowa, Douglas, Ewing, Felch, Greene,
Jones, Miller. Phelps. Pratt, Rantoul, Sebastian,
Seward. smith. Underwood opham' wales
| NAYS.-Messrs. Atchson, Bradbury, Butler,
Clarke, Clemens, Davis Of Mississippi, Dawson
Downs, Foote, Gwin, Hale, Hamlin, Houston, Hun
ter. King, Mason. Morton, Norris, Pearce, Rhett,
Rusk, Soule, Sturgeon, Turney, and Yulee--25
| The bill was then read
Mr. DAVIS, of Massachusetts, said the time was
so short that he did not purpose to 60 into any cx
tended remarks on the bill. The appropriations
contained in it extended to points all over the
country, and the amount appropriated was about
$2,3O0000 1t proposed the Improvement OF har-
| bora on the seacoast and lakes, and to rivers.
Most Of the appropriations were to be applied to
works already commenced, and which were out OF
repair.
part of the bill, "For the Illinois and Tennessee
rivers fifty thousand dollars each," by inserting
proviso that the improvement OF the Tennessee
river shall be mnde in that part OF the river lying
between Chatanoochce in Tennessee, and Catron in
| Alabama.
Mr. FOOTE was in favor Of the amendment; it
inferred the nationality Of the appropriations
! Mr. CLEMENS said if the amendment was
agreed to il would make the appropriation OF some
| benefit. The money might as well be thrown into
the river as to apply to the removal OF the Muscle
| shoals.
Mr.. BELL opposed the restriction upon the APP
preparation.
Mr.. FOOTE replied, giving the history of former
appropriations for the removal of the Muscle shoals
Mr.. BELL replied, and Mr.. FOOTE rejoined.
Mr.. BRIGHT said that, in few words, he would
express his sentiments on this bill. In it there
were several features which were of no national
character, but whose object was to improve and en-
hance the value OF private property. He would
not vote for the bill if it contained any appropra-
ton for the improvement Of the Tennessee, Ar
| kansas Illinois rivers. He opposed any appro-
praon for these rivers from no hostility to those
works, but there was principle involved in the
question which would govern his action. There
were many items of appropriation in the bill for
| which there had been no estimates furnished; nor
had there been any surveys Of the works proposed
If the bill cut down to the works of national
character, and to those of which surveys had been
| made and estimates furnished, he would vote for
it; otherwise he would move to lay it the table
| Mr.. HAMLIN said that this bill required consi-
Iteration; and ifany Of the general appropriation
bills should be lost for want of time the RESPONSE
| W. n not he butc vhere tu,el
a solemn mockery upon Legislation to send the APP
preparation bills to the Senate within the last few
hours Of the session. The Civil and Diplomatic
| Appropriation bill had not been acted upon for
want of time another appropriation bill was still
in the House and another had not been reported
yet by the Committee of Ways and Means. On
this bill he had been in the minority the Com
mittec on Commerce Ii had Objectionable features,
which he had endeavored to amend in committee
and which would compel him to vote against the
bill in its present shape The bill in gross appro
priated S2,34l 900 for the improvement Of rivers
| and harbors; of this sum S709 900 appro-
priatcd the Atlantic seacoast, and over
y l,6O0, 900 on the lakes and rivers thus showing
1 that there more than twice the amount for i'm
provements inland than there was for seacoast i'm
provements. This was not an objection to the bill
with him 30 much other features in the bill II
contained lightweight items of appropriation, Of
which twenty nine were for new works which had
appropriated for them over half million Of dol
| lara.
The bill appropriated, in round numbers, within
the several States. the following sums: Maine
S35, 900; Vermont $4,000; New York, 1885,
900; Pennsylvania, $4,000; Ohio, Sl20,000; Mi
chigan, $l60,OOo Missouri, $4,000; Illinois,
$27 1000. Wisconsin, $4,000; Iowa, $4,000;
Maryland, $4,000; Massachusetts, $50 900;
North Carolina, $4,000; Connecticut, $2l 900;
Georgia., $4,000; Rhode Island, $4,000; Della
ware, 100000; New Jersey, $4,000; Louisiana,
$l05,0O0; Alabama, $4,000; Virginia, $4,000;
Texas, $4,000; and South Carolina, $4,000.
Then there were miscellaneous appropriations
which were not properly belonging to any particu-
| lar State There TWENTY nine new rLa
propriated for; and these items, he contended
should not be placed in this BILL but should be pro-
vided for by separate BILL He would not vote for
the bill if these were retained in it. For many of
| them no estimate had ever been furnished and of
| other proposed new works no surveys had ever
been made. At the proper time he would move TO
strike out the appropriation for the Tennessee and
Mr.. CLAY pointed out the different modes by
which opposition to bill might effect its defeat.
OF all these he considered that of amendments the
most dangerous. He urged earnestly the friends
of the bill to vote with him and reject all amend
ments. The only safety of the bill was to pass it
items in the bill which it would perhaps, be better
if they were changed; but to do so at this time
would be to defeat the whole bill. He was then for
taking the bill as it came from the House. and
passing il without any amendment. He had heard
much said of what was national and what was not
national Every day were appropriations made on
the seacoast, for dock yards navy yards sc and
at the last session there was an appropriation of
over hundred thousand dollars for a dock in
! California, and objection heard against
these local works, on the ground of their want of
nationality; but when it came to the improvement
of the vast rivers in the valley OF the Mississippi OBJ
| jections were urged against them because they
| were not national. On those rivers, for the want
| of proper attention. and for want of having the
snags and other distractions removed, an annual
loss Of life and property took place which
ling. And to prevent this loss of life called no
national object Nothing comparatively, had been
done for the West or the valley of the Mississippi.
The day was fast approaching when the West
would rise and demand these Improvements; they
would not only demand, but they would have them.
He glad to that some of his Democratic
| friends had broken through all party tramincls
to all parts of the country. The North, Northwest,
East, West, and South, were all interested in the
passage of this bill
Mr.. BUTLER replied, contending that the West
railroads and canals