Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1859-02-19

holders asking Cos. at the close of the market
Produce.-Rosin is heavy, and all qualities have
slightly declined, owing heavy arrivals; sales nj
IS. Sd. Spirits Turpentine is dull at 39s. Cd.
HAvRE ADMINISTRATION closed with ad-
vancing tendency. Breadsuffs firm, but market
quiet. Provisions firm.
LONDON, Feb. 5.-Noon-The political dispute
tude is increasing. Consols 943Gp945.
In the House of Representatives, Feb. II.
Mr. Davis, of Miss, replied to the remarks
of Mr.. Garnett, DIVA, charging extravaganza
upon the democratic administration of the
government, and expressed his surprise that
gentleman claiming to be democrat
should institute such damaging comparisons
between the expenditures of the last years
of Mr. Fillmore's term and the present rate of
expenses. His remarks had done great in
Justice to the democratic party. 1t was
true, as he had stated, that our territory had
but slightly increased in extent since 1852,
but in population there had been great
change. California, Oregon, Kansas and
Nebraska had since then become sources of
large expenses, for which there had existed no
demand in 1852. He contended that our ex-
penses had only kept pace with our growth,
and that in 1856, when the opposition had
control of the House, the appropriations had
amounted to S64, 900, 900.
Mr.. Morgan, of New York, denied that the
opposition had majority in the House at the
time named.
Mr.. Davis said they had the organization.
Mr.. Morgan said that Mr.. Banks was cleo
ted Speaker througha division amongst the
democrats. The opposition did not have a
working majority.
Mr.. Davis said the opposition had sufi-
cient power then to have controlled the ap-
preparations. The expenditures of so ,OOO,-
900 in 1857 resulted from the expense of
carrying on the Utah war. He then went
on to defend the expenditures of the war de-
partment and the integrity and competency
of the Secretary of War. He also launched
into review of our tariff policy, and argued
against protection, and in favor of a tariff for
revenue. He avoved himself opposed to di-
rect taxation, and in favor of a tariff adjus-
ted on strictly revenue principles.
Mr.. Granger of New York, said the States
possessed all the powers not delegated to the
general government and had the right to
Judge of the extent of their sovereignty. In
this respect they were as independent Of
the United States as of any fore IN power.
He quoted high authorities to sustain this
position, showing that this was the true re-
publican doctrine as enumerated by Jetfer-
son, and the resolutions of '9S. He argued,
therefore, that the State of New York had Il
right to prevent fugitive slave from being
taken from within her limits. She had the
right to throw the Hgis Of protection around
all whose feet touched her soil. The cOnsti-
tuition maintained the right of habeas cor
pus, and proclaimed that no one could be de-
prived of life liberty or property without
due process of law.
He argued that the law of the Southern
States which made the child of negro by
white father slave, w9s in violation OF
the constitution, and amounted to a bill of
attainder. He went on ut length to attack
the laws of the south relating to slavery. and
to denounce the fugitive slave law. He was
particularly severe upon the northern allies
of the South, who had no excuse for their
course. If the North was as true to free
dom IA the South was to slavery, the happi
ness of the human race would be greatly adj
yanced. The constitution contained nothing
in favor of slavery, and the Declaration Of
Independence was directly in opposition to
that Institution.
Mr.. Letcher of Virginia, denied the doc
trine that minorties were not responsible
for the action of the bodies to which they be-
longed. He contended that all members OF
every PARTY owed duties here which they
should discharge. 1t was the duty, for in
stance, of the committee Oh expenditures to
examine not only the expenses of the House
but also ofthe Departments, and to see that
appropriations should be applied to the use
for which they were granted. Gentlemen Of
the opposition were upon this committee,
they had taken no action, and yet came here
and made an outcry about the extravaganza
of the democratic administration. He con-
tended that gentlemen of the opposition had
not discharged their duties, and went on to
point out that the committee referred to had
revisory power over all the expenses of the
government.
Mr.. Stanton, of Ohio. said the committee
was composed of a majority of the gentleman's
friends. the chairman was democrat, and
vet he had never called the committee togeth-
err. The minority were powerless either to
report to the House or take action.
MIR. Letcher proceeded to argue that
the minority could have acted if they had
chosen so to do, and that they were respon-
sible in part for the government expenditures.
Mr.. Maynard, of Tenn, said his party
could not be responsible, for they were not
represented on the committee.
Mr.. Letcher said he did not know where to
place the gentleman. His platform was so
small that he could not see it.
Emigration to Liberia.
The packet Mary Caroline Stevens, will sail