The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1852-06-19
CONGRESSIONAL.
spsEon oe nuS. 5. soaLANp.
OF ARKANsAs


On he Defeiencu Bill aud he Collins Steamers dthU-
cred IN hs Senate May ~, 1852. II. Fl.
The Senate having under consideration the bill entitled
" An 10 supply deficiencies IN appropriations Tor me
service Of the fiscal year ending Jane SON, lso2the
question being upon the following amen!meni, offered bt
Mr. CHASE 10 the appropriation for the Collins line oil
steamers
nd ,rosdsd further That The prcpdetors Of said line
OF steamers sha consent 10 such modliein OF tbe eH
sting contract Postmaster General may advertise
for aud accept proposals tor carrying the mats ~ sauaoe
q not less an Two h9assnd 'oa, easdeo, ps
the said Slst day OF December 1874 when SAID contract
sd 70 os sa 'Ds be % @
for such poposals which shal be submitted to Congress
the session.
Mr. BORLAND said
Mr PaEsIpEsr: Having heretofore occupied some
two days the discussion OF this subject, owe apo
ogy for respassng again upon the time OF the Senas
offer i IN advance, 10 The importance OF The subject seii,
and sense OF duty to my constituents and myself when
cannot disregard to express fully and iarly our views
upon the principles and policy il involves.
The body OF my remarks today will be dlTec'ed
against the whole bis general character and policy
in the Of which | shall undertake TO show, by
facts and figures, furnished by the official records and
which con,rover, that all such bills and Mis
IN particular, are IN violation oil sound constitutional
principles and dangerous 10 the best interests OF the
county
Bui. before entering upon this general question, have
a few remarks TO make upon the subject oil ls parcu-
lar amendment, in addition to what have heretofore
said These will be directed 10 three points,
which compelled, for want OF time, to omit before,
but which necessary TO complete my argument as
| originally marked il out, against the Collins line Of
steamers. This | will do much in outline as can,
and as briefly as my poor powers OF condensation will
permit.
THE COLLINS LINE OF STEAMERS.
My opposition 10 the continuance of the service OF
this line OF steamers, even upon IFS present foundation,
and decidedly still 10 the proposed increase o
pensation, has been based upon the broad and solid
ground OF opposition TO the protective policy and 10
ulty Nnui fhp itsaH
era bearing upon all the interests of the country vio-
laton OF that great principle OF equal rights, equal lls
and free trade, the faithful observance OF which, in the
whole administration OF government, Legislative and
executive relglousiy believe 10 be Indispensable, not
only welfare as people, but TO existence
Union; and which know has always been held 10 be
The cardinal and vital principle Of the creed Of the demo-
cratic party And, thus wrong in principle, such
ure could not be- as il has not been, otherwise
than unjust and injurious 10 It's operation TO every leg
mate interest OF the country
This was the foundation OF my argument when oppo-
sing this before do not deem il necessary TO
furnish additional arguments illustrations support OF
the general positions then taken and defended Surely
cannot be necessaryit ought hardly 10 be allowable,
this day, and TO democratic Senate, 10 make formal
and elaborate argument agans, onopoes or the protective
pocg IT, indeed such necessity be upon us which for
my right arm would believe then be great political
battles which have been waged and fought 10 the agiIa.
ton Of the States and people of this whole Union. for the
last twenty five years have all been war OF words
and nothing more aud all our much -boasted democratic
triumpbs have been fruiiless OF good results we
have become inconsistent and ridiculous in boaspg
them
Upon this general ground will only reafim the opia
ion before expressed. that The claim of this Collins line
upon the government for The support already granted or
asked ior rests altogether and exclusively upon the
dotrine of protection. And in this opinion do not stand
alone, either here or elsewhere. To show this will
read short paragraph from an able article which has
recently appeared IN journal OF high political authority
in the democratic party, at least When | name that
journal as the Democratic Review" | anticipate some
revulson OF feeling IN the breasts OF certain members oil
my party, account OF the personal bearing OF
some OF It's recent editorials With those editorials, or
the feelings they may have aroused 10 the minds o the
political asprants against whom they directed, have
nothing do on this occasion, be my own opinions what
they may refer 10 It for nothing III relation 10 It's per-
sonaues, or 10 any asprant 10 political honors refer
10 il only authority for political principle, upon which
It's sonndness has never been, and aPpreheni, will not
now be questioned BY the democratic parly-no, SIR, not
even by those members OF the party who feel most ag
greved by IFS opposition 10 their individual advancement
In respect 10 this ColllAs line, the Democratic Review
for May says:
:" We understand why the advocates Of the principle
Of protection should support tho claim o the CouS
pany new contract as thai claim made on the ground
ihat II expensive to run American than English
steamers wherefore greater amount OF mail pay re-
qured than tbst granted 70 the English iae The allow
Of The claim, those grounds, would unequyocay
commit Congress 10 the doctrine OF protection"
do not quote this as controlling authority, or as
conclusive Argument but deliberate and wel-con.
sdered expression OF opinion from the recognised expo
nent OF political principles for the democratic party,
which has reached since my own opinion on this
point expressed 10 the Senate, and which, high
y grated TO find, strictly comedies with and strongly
confirms II.
But tAs opinion rests not entirely with the Democratic
Review nor with me. assert here without the fear OF
successful contradiction, that such is the opinion Of
overwhelming majority OF this Senate, well OF those
who support OF those who oppose this appropriation
This is proved, alike by its discussion and by the vote
upon il 10 committee. know there are some here who
have denied this But look al the record. The vote was
close one in thin house think il would have been
closer II the house bad been full confidently assert
that every senator who voted against il entertain, this
opinion aud as confidently Hsser that at least two
thirds OF those who voted for il hold the opinion
Here is the vote
YEAS-AIestu. Bell Beuien, Bright Cass, Dawson
Owns, FISH, Foot, uwin Houston James, Jones OF Iowa.
Mangum, Miller Norris, Pearce, Rusk, Seward, Shields
NAYS-Messp. Adams Botand, Bradbary, Brooke
Chase, Clemens, Dodge Of Wisconsin, Dodge Of Iows
DJug glas Frch GeyeT Hamlin, Hunter Jones or Tennes
see, King, Mason, Morton, Sebastian, Wade, Walker and
Weler-2l
Test them by their known principles and party rela-
il you strike from the list OF lis supporters all who be-
leye upon the doctrine Of protection, and that the
doctrine OF protection is right, Il will fall into very lean
minority Here, in Senate which boasts a large demo
cratic majority, every whiR, except two OF three (and
even those two or three admitting lis protective character
voting against il as protective measure and even the
few democrats who voted for IL admitting il to be
doubtful question, and some OF them debating they
would not vote for il original proposition the opin
ion s expressed by the American Senate, clearly, as
strongly and significantly the action OF tks body
can express an opinion that this is of prois
tips policy; and II adopted will, in the language OF the
Review, dcoInmit Congress unequyocally to The doc
tfne ef proteoiion and thus will add, violate the car,
dinal principle Of the democratic creed. need pursue