The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1859-02-18

Mr.. JONES moved to strike out 81 P. NJ. to-mor-
row. and insert SO p NJ to-day" which
agreed to.
The resolution as amended was then agreed to.
and the House again resolved itself into Committee
OF the Whole, Mr.. Cochrane, of New York, in the
34S 022
Mr.. DAVIS, of Mississippi, replied to the remarks
of Mr. Garnet, of Virginia, charging extravaganza
upon the Democratic Administration of the Govern
ment, 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 pre-
sent rate of expenses. His remarks had done great
injustice 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 a great change. California, Ore
gon, Kansas and Nebraska, had since then become
sources of large expenses for which there had ex-
listed no demand IN 1852. He contended that our
expenses 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, 100000
Mr.. MORGAN, of New York, denied that the op-
position had majority in the House at the time
named.
Mr.. DAVIS said they had the organization.
Mr. MORGAN said that Mr.. Banks was elected
Speaker through division amongst the Democrats
The opposition did not have a working majority
Mr.. DAVIS said the opposition had sufficient pow
er then to have controlled the appropriations The
expenditure of S72 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 tariff for revenue. He avowed
himself opposed to direct taxation and in favor of
tariff adjusted on strictly revenue principles
Mr.. GRANGER, of New York, said the States pos-
sessessed all the power not delegated to the Gener-
al Government, and had the right to Judge of the
extent of their sovereignty. In this respect thew
hgi to
tain this position, showing that this was the true
republican doctrine enunciated by Jefferson,
and the resolutions of '9S. He argued therefore
that the State of New York had right to prevent
fugitive slave from being taken within her limits.
She had the right to throw the @gis of her protec-
ton around all whose feet touched her soil. The
Constitution maintained the right of habeas corpus
and proclaimed that no one could be deprived of
lie, liberty or property without due process of law
lie argued that the law of the Southern States
which made the child of negro by white father
slave, was in violation of the Constitution and
amounted to a bill of attainder He went on at
length to attack the laws of the South relating to
slavery, and to denounce the Fugitive Slave Law.
lie was particularly severe upon the Northern al
lies OF the South, who had no excuse for their
course. If the North as true to freedom as
the South was to slavery the happiness of the hu-
man race would be greatly advanced. The Consti-
tuition 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 mlnorites were not responsible for the
action OF the bodies to which they belonged He
contended that all members of eyery party owed
duties here which they should discharge. 1t was
the duty for instance of the Committee on Expen-
dItures to examine not only the expenses of the
House but also of the Departments and to see that
the appropriations should be applied to the uses for
which they were granted. Gentlemen of the oppo-
sltlon were upon this committee; they had taken
| no action, and yet came here and made an outcry
| nf thn H..
mlnistration. He contended that gentlemen of the
| opposition had not discharged their duties and
went on to point out that the committee referred to
had revisive power over all the expenses of the
Government.
Mr.. STANTON, of Ohio, said the Committee was
composed of a majority of the gentleman friends
The Chairman was Democrat and vet he had new
er called the Committee together The minority
was powerless either to report to the House or take
action.
Mr. LETCHER proceeded to demonstrate that the
minority could have acted if they had chosen so to
do and that'they were responsible in part for the
Government expenses
Mr. MAYNARD, of Tenn, said his party could not be
responsible, for they were not represented on that
Committee.
Mr.. LErcHER said he did not know where to place
the gentleman; his platform was so small that he
could not see it.
Mr. PHELPS, of Mo-, proceeded to explain the
provisions of the Army Bill, and to show how it
was that the appropriation was larger than last
year He said it was the duty of the Secretary of
war to report to Congress what reduction he
thought could be made in the appropriations
Mr.. CHAFFEE said the condition of the Treasury
was such that pro rata reduction might be made
upon all grades
Mr. STANTON moved to strike out $1,000 for
recruiting. Here was a fair chance for gentlemen
to show their zeal for economy. All that was want
ed was mere skeleton, which could be filled up in
time of war.
MIR. BRANCH opposed the amendment. He would
reduce the number of officers before touching the
privates.
Mr.. FAULKNER proposed to reduce the appropria.
ton $40 900, pending which. the House adinnrnnd