The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1852-08-28

The amount appropriated during the first year
Of MIR. Van Buren, administration q. g. 1881 was
S2,057 ,0A l6.
Those who seek to place the Democratic party
in false position upon this question, mainly rely
upon the veto messages of President Polk. But
apprehend that if Mr.. Polk had carried his OPP
position so far ns to deny the existence OF any
power in the Constitution 10 make improvements
of any kind, (Which he did not,) IL could in no
way alter or change the settled policy of the Demo-
cratic party. Mr. Polk placed his veto upon the
ground that the bill presented to him for approval
contained items Of purely local character, and
for that reason IL could not receive his approval.
In connexion with this view Of the subject, he
says:
Some Of the provisions Of this bill are not
subject TO the objections stated; and did they
stand alone, should not feel it to be my duty to
withhold my approval"
AT the succeeding session another bill similar
10 the one vetoed by Mr.. Polk was on the last
night Of tho session, passed and presented TO him
for his approval, which he declined to give, but
returned it with his reasons for Withholding hs
signature. Both Of these bills, II will be remem-
bered, provided for large appropriations of money
at time when the country was prosecuting a
foreign war; and was borrowing money for that
purpose. This fact Of itself exercised a strong
influence over the mind OF Mr.. Polk and indeed
il is assigned by him being one Of the most
potent reasons against the bill becoming a law.
While do not concur with him 10 his argument,
deny that he, in any part Of his messages denies
the existence OF the constitutional power in Con-
gress II make appropriations for objects that would
be national IN their character On the contrary
he expressly states that the bill did contain items
which, il they stood alone, would receive his
sanction.
l now propose to answer public clamor tina,
was rnised against our present distinguished cam
dIdate for the Presidency, Simultaneous with his
nomination, and intended to operate against him
IN the western States, most interested in the sub
lect have been discussing. This clamor against
General Pierce ia based altogether on his votes
while he was a member OF this Housc, and during
the time he occupied a scat ia the Senate OF the
United Sta'es, on appropriation bills, all Of which
contained items entirely local in their character,
that many OF the lending Wings, with their great
leader, Mr.. Clay, at their head, voted on the same
side with General Pierce. I have examined the
Journals of the House and Of the Senate during
the time General Pierce a member Of Con-
gress, and have made an abstract of the votes of
distinguished and leading Wings on river and
harbor bills. have selected the names Of Wings
known to the country, and find the following to
be the result of my investigation
Second session 2ad Congress, Is34-s.
III. r. No. 6f5 A bill making additional ar-
preparations for the Delaware breakwater. for
certain harbors, and for removing obs,ru,5sns
IN and at the mouths Of certain rivers or the
year 1895
Among those who voted in the neSl,ive are
William y Archer, Va; f.. Deb~fy, N. Y.
George Evans, Me. Horace Ever0, VI; Bale
Peyton, Tenn,
There was no vote by yss,and nays in the
Senate,