32D CONG.....3D SESS.

paying them about $30,000 extra at the close of a session, and on the last night of the session. But it will never come to an end.

Special Session-Extra Compensation.

is so, for it says no payment "shall be made," without any qualification whatever. Now I deny the power of the Senate to do that, and I deny the propriety of doing it. If, as the Senator says, it does not mean that, why not make it speak what it does mean, that no payment shall be made hereafter unless the Senate direct it? I think he admits that if the Senate does direct it the payment must be made. It is mere brutum fulmen to put there a declaration that no payment shall be made hereafter of any extra allowance or compensation, when the Senator knows perfectly well that if the proviso is adopted the extra allowance can be made if the Senate choose, and will be paid in the manner in which it has been done heretofore. Therefore, I think, in order that we may not stul

Mr. BADGER. I wish to say one word about this last time" to which Senators have alluded. Mr. BUTLER. "Henceforth." [Laughter.] Mr. BADGER. "Henceforth;" I change the word. What the Senator said is correct, but he forgets one part of it. The Senator from Indiana, [Mr. BRIGHT,] at the session before the last, said he would yield for that time, but at the commencement of the next session he would introduce a resolution for revising and increasing the salaries, and he was assured if he did so he would receive the entire support of the Senate. He omitted it at that session, and he explained to me the reason, that it was not a suitable time to introducetify ourselves by undertaking by the proviso to tie it, when we had adopted a provision in the appropriation bill making a temporary increase of the salaries of most of the subordinate employees of the Government. That was the reason why he did not introduce it.

Mr. CHASE. I am opposed generally to this doctrine of "henceforth." *I do not believe in it as it was explained the other day by the Senator from North Carolina. That which is fit to be done is fit to be done now; and that which is right should be insisted on at all times. If a policy is expedient, it is expedient that it should be carried out now and at all times.

My friend from North Carolina has said that this is an expiring system. I think it is a wrong system, and I agree in that with the Senator from Illinois, and with the other Senators who have spoken on the subject to day. If it is wrong, it should be discontinued, and I know of no time so proper for its discontinuance as the present; and therefore, for the purpose of testing the sense of the Senate upon that, I desire to submit this amend

ment:

Provided, That hereafter no allowance of any kind, beyond their regular compensation, shall be made to any officer of the Senate.

Mr. BADGER. Is it in order to move to amend that amendment?

The PRESIDENT. It is.

our own hands, we ought to adopt my amendment. I admit that after the amendment to the amendment is adopted, it will present rather an extraordinary spectacle, but not half as extraordinary as the amendment in its present shape. It is not an amendment declaratory of a purpose; it is not an amendment declaratory of the intentions or judgment of the Senate; it is a peremptory and mandatory proviso that hereafter no additional compensation shall be paid. Whom does it limit? It proposes to limit somebody. If it limits any body it must be the Senate, for nobody else has assumed any authority to order the payments but the Senate. It is said that we do not pretend to limit the Senate. Then say so expressly upon the face of the amendment. Suppose the honorable Senator should add a proviso to a bill relating to the salaries of officers, that hereafter no salary should be paid to any officer, greater than the saĺary allowed in that bill, when the officer could receive no salary except under that or some subsequent law. Does not the Senator see that it would be vain and nugatory? I am sincere about this matter, and I should be very sorry to have such a proviso appended to the resolution. I think it places the Senate in a very absurd position. It uses the word "shall" as applied to the Senate or somebody else. It is admitted that nobody has anything to do with it but the Senate, and it undertakes to say that the Senate hereafter shall not do a particular thing. We thus undertake not only to say that we shall not do it, but that no Senate hereafter shall do it. I cannot see the propriety of it. I believe, myself, that when the Committee on Retrenchment reports at the next session, the system they report will be adopted, and that will put an end to this business. But I would rather the system should continue forever than adopt such a proviso as is proposed by the Senator from Ohio.

Mr. CHASE. Every law is subject to repeal; every rule is subject to alteration. The Senate, if they see fit, may proceed in disregard of their rules, by unanimous consent. They cannot disregard a law which they impose upon themselves, except by unanimous consent. It is true that this amendment will become the rule of the Senate unless it is repealed. Therefore I desire its adoption because I know it will constitute a rule, and because I know that unless it is adopted we shall continue to be found in precisely the same situation as at the last night of last session, and the same ap

Mr. BADGER. Then I move to add the words "unless directed by the Senate." I presume the honorable Senator from Ohio does not mean to say, that if the Senate should direct the payment of the extra allowance, the Committee on Contingent Expenses shall not pay it. Now, let us look at this case. The Senator's amendment provides that hereafter no extra allowance shall be made. Suppose that at the next session an extra allowance is ordered. The Senator certainly does not mean, if that is ordered by the Senate, and paid by the Secretary out of the contingent fund, that he shall lose the money. It unquestionably means nothing but this: that no extra allowance shall be paid unless the Senate direct it. If it means that, say it. I submit the amendment to make the proviso consistent with the state of the law. Mr. CHASE. I am quite aware that the Senate, at the next session, may, if they choose, notwithstanding this proviso, grant the extra allowance; but the object of the proviso, I suppose, cannot be mistaken. It is to declare that in the judgment of the Senate the system is wrong, and ought to be discontinued. We have heretofore,peals will be made to us, and we shall be under upon almost every occasion, as is well known, when propositions for granting extra allowance have been made, been told it is the last time. Now, I wish to put it upon record that it is the last time. We all know very well that it is perfectly competent for the Senate at the next session, if they see fit, to overrule or rescind the proviso. They may do that; but unless it is adopted there will be nothing to indicate that it is the understanding of the Senate that this system ought to be discontinued. On the contrary, if the proviso be adopted now, in my judgment, the system will be discontinued. If it is not adopted, the Senate say in effect that the system shall be continued. I hope that the Senator from North Carolina, inasmuch as he says his amendment will not affect the case at all, will not press it.

Mr. BADGER. I think my proposed amendment does affect the case greatly; for the amendment of the honorable Senator, as it stands, declares that no payment shall be made, whether directed by the Senate or not. Undoubtedly that

SENATE.

Mr. BADGER. I wish to correct one error into which the Senator has fallen. Although I have been a friend of that system, and think it the best, I do not choose to stand in opposition to the sense of the Senate if a change is determined upon. I am willing that the system shall be discontinued, not because I think it is wrong, not because I do not think it is good in itself, but because it is the subject of complaint, and liable to misapprehension and misconstruction. But I do object to putting a proviso of this kind to the resolution, which my friend from lowa withdrew at my earnest solicitation, because it places us in a ridiculous attitude before the country. If we cannot trust our own firmness and decision, without a pledge in the form of a resolution to control our action, let us confess our imbecility, and give way to somebody to correct it.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I hope the honorable Senator from Ohio will have more firmness than either the Senator from Iowa or myself have shown in offering an amendment and then withdrawing it. I hope he will not withdraw the proviso. I confess I admire the apparent earnestness and frankness with which the honorable Senator from North Carolina has argued this question. The real point at issue is this: shall this abuse be discontinued or not? Whenever we have attempted to arrest this practice towards the end of a session, we have been invariably told that it will not do to stop it at that time, because the employees have been engaged, and have worked under the expectation of getting it; that we must give notice at the beginning of a session that we are not to make these allowances; that there was an implied obligation to grant it at the end of the session. That argument invariably prevails when objection is made to the adoption of a resolution towards the close of a session. Then the advocates of the system, when a proposition is made to give notice, think it is very unbecoming to give such a notice, and say that we must have firmness when the time comes at the end of the session, to resist and stop the abuse. Thus by one course of argument at the opening of the session, and by another course of argument at the close of the session, the system has been extended till it has reached now the character of an intolerable abuse. I hope we will adopt the amendment and give the notice. I believe that is the object of the Senator from Ohio by his amendment. The effect of the amendment to the amendment offered by the Senator from North Carolina, is to carry the implication that hereafter we will grant the extra allowance.

Mr. BADGER. No; but that it must be paid if we do.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I understand the argument of the Senator upon that subject; I think it would be an improvement of" Chitty on Special Pleading." The proviso is, that hereafter no allowance shall be made. If that proviso be adopted there is a notice that our employees are not to expect it, and if they do they will not get it. Then the amendment to the amendment that the allowance shall not be made unless authorized by the Senate carries the implication with it that we will pay it hereafter as we have on every former occasion. Hence, the question is now distinctly stated whether or not we will put an end to this abuse, and we arrive at that distinct issue by rejecting the amendment to the amendment, and standing firmly by the amendment of the Senator from Ohio.

Mr. DODGE, of Iowa. I trust the amendment to the amendment will be rejected, and that we shall adopt the amendment of the Senator from Ohio, although I yielded to the solicitation of my friend from North Carolina, and thus showed his power over me. It is not the first time that I have yielded to that power. But I look upon the amendment just as I do upon the amendments made to appropriations for custom-house buildings. Congress has the power to go on and appropriate its dollars ad infinitum, I know. When a bill is before us granting money for the construction of a custom-house, a proviso is always added that the expenditure shall not exceed the appropriation, and my friend from Virginia [Mr. HUNTER] has almost worn out his fingers drawing up such provisoes. But we know that Congress has power to override them. I look upon them as a proclamation to those engaged in erect

32D CONG....3D SESS.

ing the custom-houses to keep within the amount if they can, for they will have a hard fight to get any more dollars out of the Treasury in that way. But this question is now up, and the action of the Senate is to be had, and I do believe that the precise inference will be drawn which the Senator from Illinois has suggested, if the amendment is re

Special Session-Extra Compensation.

seen before this body. I have studiously resisted the payment at every session since I have been a member of the body. The system commenced in the first place by giving to the clerks $100 each, I believe, and to the other officers of the body $50. It has grown to such an enormous extent that we now appropriate over $30,000 per annum for the

SENATE.

has been in the habit of triumphing over us, will triumph in the same way again, and everybody will get the money hereafter, who has been accustomed to get it, and it will go even to the printers and printers' clerks. I hope my friend from North Carolina will yield to me in this small matter, and cease to battle with me. I have given up to him once, and I now call on him to give way and vote for the proviso.

Mr. BADGER. Nothing would gratify me more than to have an opportunity of yielding to my friend, but he must remember that this is not the proper place, in propria loco; things must be done in the right place. Now, he will recollect that he made his proposition, and at my appeal he kindly and generously withdrew it. His own heart, to which he then yielded, suggested to him that the proposition was a wrong one; but unfortunately he has allowed the hard-hearted reasoning of the Senator from Ohio, supported by the unfeeling argumentation of the Senator from Illinois, to induce him to resist the impulses of his heart, and to resort to the stringent operation of another influence. Now, Mr. President, such being the case, I cannot yield to him, because I should be doing my friend wrong. It would aid him in displacing himself from the elevated position which he just now occupied. [Laughter.] The argument of my friend refers to the cases of limitations in regard to custom-houses. Whenever it is necessary to make an increase of the appropriation is it refused? Never; and it never ought to be, for if the custom-house ought to be built, and the sum first appropriated turns out to be inadequate, how absurd it is to say that we will not appropriate the money to complete it; that we will give no more because we said we would give no more. So here my friend must be aware that if the Committee on Retrenchment report a system upon this subject, and it should be adopted, the extra compensation will be done away with; but if it should not be adopted, he knows that the Senate will order the extra compensation, so that the amendment is useless. I beg him to fall back upon the position of generous noble-heartedness which he occupied a little while ago.

Mr. DODGE, of Iowa. I will say to the Senator that it was my judgment which was influenced to withdrew the amendment and not my heart. I withdrew it because I had a regard for the business of the Senate, and did not wish at the eleventh hour of the session to consume time by going into these matters. But, sir, I am satisfied that good will grow out of the adoption of the amendment of the Senator from Ohio, notwithstanding the argument of my friend from North Carolina. I do consider that whatever Committee on Retrenchment is formed at the next session, it will regard the adoption of the proviso as an instruction. If it is voted down, the committee will just go on as it did at the last session, and precisely the same scenes will be enacted at the close of the session. It is not the first instance in which my friend from North Carolina has had a triumph over me. all the little matters of books, constitutions, &c., he has triumphed over me. He has almost always triumphed over me by appeals, if not by votes. I certainly do not blame him.

In

Mr. BADGER. I never had a triumph over my friend except in contests of generosity. In a contest for votes, he has obtained it.

Mr. DODGE, of Iowa. But I will not prolong this controversy further. I hope that the amendment of the Senator from Ohio will be agreed to. Mr. BRIGHT. I think the Senator from Ohio is right in offering his amendment, and I think his reasoning in support of it has not been controverted by the Senator from North Carolina. The system of extra compensation was considered a very trivial matter at its inception, but like every other iniquitous system it has grown, and though the Senator from North Carolina claims that it is expiring, it has certainly been longer dying than any other measure which I have ever

we appropriated, as has been said by the Senator from Pennsylvania, over $28,000; the last session the amount was over $30,000. Yes, sir, to an officer of this body whose salary is $3,000 we add $500 extra; to an officer whose salary is $1,800 we add $250 extra; to an officer-the Sergeant-atArms-whose salary is $1,500 we add $500 extra, to clerks whose salaries are $1,500 we add $250, to employees who draw from three to four dollars per day we add $250, at a short as well as a long session; swelling the appropriation to the enormous sum of over $30,000.

Whenever it has been resisted heretofore, we have been met by just such an argument as that used by the Senator from North Carolina to-day, that the employees expected it; that they had lived with reference to it; that it would interfere greatly with their private engagements if they did not get it, and therefore we were bound to vote for it. We voted it at the last session, and we are asked this morning to add three to the list. I thought we had gone far enough when, at the close of the last session, we added the gate-keeper; yes, sir, the gate-keeper in the public grounds, remote from the Capitol. I did not object to that, believing that an objection would be useless, as I uniformly failed in objecting to the system. But we have come to a point now when the system can be checked. We can, by the amendment offered by the Senator from Ohio, give notice to our employees-worthy persons all of them, qualified for their places, I admit; I mean nothing against any of them when I say, that if they are not satisfied with their regular salaries, there are plenty of persons throughout this Confederacy, who would be glad to take their places. If we give the notice, it will be no argument hereafter, in support of the extra compensation that our officers have been living with reference to it. I hope that the vote on the amendment will be regarded as a test vote as to whether we intend to continue the system or stop it, and with that view, I ask for the yeas and nays on it, so that the notice may appear on the record.

Mr. BAYARD. In the special session of 1851, when I first took a seat in this body, I recollect that a resolution was offered to supply an omission which had occurred in not passing the cus

ate, and the impropriety, without notice, of depriving the officers of the compensation to which from our previous action they might look, which induced me at that session to vote for the compensation. The same argument will be made hereafter, unless the amendment of the Senator from Ohio prevails. If it does prevail, no officer can reasonably expect that the extra allowance will be tem, on the ground that it must inevitably lead to gross corruption and abuse, and might be extended to all the officers of the Government with as much reason as to the officers of the Senate, although it would require in one case, the action of both Houses, and in the other only the action of the Senate, I will vote against the resolution, unless the proviso is adopted.

Mr. BADGER. The introductory remark in what the Senator from Delaware has done me the honor to read, should be expounded by a certain figure in rhetoric by which that is intended which is not expressed, in order to show the meaning which I had in view in what I said at that time. But so far I was entirely in earnest in that case. Though believing in the propriety of the original system, yet it is the subject of so much unnecessary difficulty in the Chamber and so much misconception, that I am ready to yield and vote for the system which may be matured to render it

unnecessary.

Mr. BAYARD. I read those remarks merely for the purpose of showing that the same argument might be made at a future session, if we do not give the notice now. It was an argument that weighed with me, coming with the force with which it was stated, the first session at which I took a seat in this body. By the adoption of the amendment I think you preclude the possibility of using such an argument at another session.

Mr. BADGER. If the Committee on Retrenchment report a system which will do away with the extra compensation, no one will vote for the allowance; but if it does not, I assure the honorable Senator I will move the usual resolution, and the Senate will adopt it.

Mr. BAYARD. I think not.

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the amendment of the Senator from North Carolina to the amendment.

Mr. BAYARD. I will merely remark that the object of the amendment to the amendment is to destroy the original amendment, and those who are in favor of the original amendment will vote against the proposition of the Senator from North Carolina.

Mr. CHASE. As the object of the amendment

to the amendment is clearly seen, we might as well take a test vote on it, and I therefore ask for the yeas and nays..

The yeas and nays were ordered; and being taken, resulted-yeas 4, nays 30; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Badger, Borland, Cooper, and Morton

-4.

NAYS-Messrs. Adams, Atchison, Atherton, Bayard, Benjamin, Bright, Brodhead, Butler, Chase, Dodge of Wisconsin, Dodge of Iowa, Douglas, Evans, Fitzpatrick, Hamlin, Houston, Hunter, James, Jones of Iowa, Mallory, Mason, Norris, Sebastian, Seward, Smith, Soulé, Stuart, Sumner, Thompson of Kentucky, and Weller-30.

tomary resolution at the preceding session in reference to the extra compensation. At that time I was very much struck with the force of the argument used by the Senator from Indiana in opposition to the allowance. Independent of that argument, I could never have consented to the introduction of such a system. But what weighed with me in reply to that argument, was the language of a distinguished Senator using the very style of argument alluded to by the Senator from Illinois. It induced me to vote in favor of the resolution, with the determination in my mind that at no subsequent session would I give such a vote. I will read the remarks made by the Sen-jected. ator from North Carolina in reference to the argument of the Senator from Indiana, in order to show the necessity of the amendment now proposed by the Senator from Ohio. Unless we adopt that amendment, we shall have the same appeal made at another session which was made then. The Senator from North Carolina said:

"I think the honorable Senator from Indiana is entitled to all praise and commendation for the sentiments expressed on this subject, taking the open, public, and manly ground which he has taken in respect to it. I am glad to hear him say that he intends at the next session of Congress to propose a bill for the purpose of the reorganization of the system. I assure him that I for one will, to the utmost of my power, cheerfully cooperate with him in establishing such a system as shall make it unnecessary for the Senate to vote any extra compensation. But no question as to what we shall do at the next session is now before us. The question now is, whether we shall make the usual extra allowance to our officers, or suddenly, without notice, without preconcert or any new arrangement, cut them off, and leave them without that which, from our past conduct, they had a just and fair right to expect?"

So the amendment to the amendment was re

The question recurring on the amendment, Mr. BRIGHT called for the yeas and nays, and they were ordered; and being taken resulted-yeas 34, nays 3; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Adams, Atchison, Atherton, Bayard, Benjamin, Bright, Brodhead, Chase, Dodge of Wisconsin, Dodge of Iowa, Douglas, Evans, Everett, Fish, Fitzpatrick, Hamlin, Houston, Hunter, James, Jones of Iowa, Mallory, Mason, Morton, Norris, Sebastian, Seward, Shields, Smith, Soulé, Stuart, Sumner, Thompson of Kentucky, Toucey, and Weller-34.

NAYS-Messrs. Badger, Borland, and Cooper-3.

So it was agreed to; and the question recurring on the resolution as amended, it was agreed to.

PRINTING OF A MAP.

Mr. BORLAND. The Committee on Printing, to which was referred the question of printing a map indicating the proposed course of steam navigation between San Francisco and Shanghai, to accompany a bill of the Senator from California, It was the force'and strength of that argument, [Mr. GwiN,] for the establishment of a line of applying to the precedents and usages of the Sen-mail steamers, have directed me to report in favor

32D CONG....3D SESS.

of printing the same, and also in favor of printing one thousand extra copies.

Mr. SEWARD. I move to amend the report by striking out "one thousand" and inserting "one thousand five hundred."

The motion was agreed to; and the report of the committee, as amended, was concurred in.

REPORT ON THE MEXICAN BOUNDARY. Mr. BORLAND. The same committee, to which was referred the report of the Secretary of the Interior, communicating, in further compliance with a resolution of the Senate, certain papers in relation to the Mexican boundary commission, has directed me to report it back; and as the two thousand additional copies of the first part of the report of Mr. Bartlett, the commissioner to run the boundary line, of which this is the completion, have been ordered to be printed, the committee report in favor of printing two thousand additional copies of the completion of it.

The report was concurred in.

PAPERS WITHDRAWN.

On motion by Mr. MALLORY, it was Ordered, That the heirs of Joseph H. Waring be permitted to withdraw their papers from the files of the Senate. REPORT OF TOPOGRAPHICAL DEPARTMENT.

Mr. HAMLIN. On the 19th of April, 1852, there was transmitted to the Senate a report of the Topographical Department, relating to the beacons and light-houses on the new south shoals of Nantucket. Owing to the state of the public printing it was not ordered to be printed. move that it be printed for the use of the Senate. The motion was agreed to.

REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON FRAUDs. On motion by Mr. HOUSTON, it was Ordered, That fourteen hundred additional copies of the report made yesterday by the Committee on Frauds, &c., be printed for the use of the Senate.

LATE SERGEANT-AT-ARMS.

On motion by Mr. SHIELDS, the Senate proceeded to consider the following resolution, submitted by him on Thursday last:

"Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate pay to Robert Beale, late Sergeant at Arms, the salary for the residue of the present year."

Mr. PETTIT. Mr. President, I cannot well imagine how a Senator who has just voted for the amendment offered by the Senator from Ohio to another resolution, can propose such a resolution as this. What do you propose to do, sir? You are here undertaking not to pay an officer, or one who is to render service of any kind to the Senate, but to pay a person whom you have discharged from service. There can be no color of any claim for this compensation. You might as well establish a rule that after you had discharged all your officers you would continue to pay them. I would like to know if there is any reason for it. You can hold your officers as long as you please, and pay them; but after they are discharged, I cannot see why you should pay them.

Mr. SHIELDS. As the Senator from Indiana has charged me with inconsistency, I must say to him that I am not inconsistent in offering this resolution, although I did vote for the proviso of the Senator from Ohio. His proviso was against giving extra pay to officers of the Senate. Everybody knows that Mr. Beale is not an officer of the Senate, so that there is no inconsistency.

Mr. MASON. It is manifest that this resolution will lead to debate, and I therefore move to lay it on the table for the purpose of proceeding to the consideration of Executive business. The motion was agreed to; there being on a division-ayes 17, noes 16.

EXECUTIVE SESSION.

On motion by Mr. MASON, the Senate proceeded to the consideration of Executive business; and after some time spent therein, the doors were reopened,

And the Senate adjourned.

THURSDAY, March 24, 1853. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. C. M. BUTLER. The Senate proceeded to consider the following résolution submitted by Mr. WALKER, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, on the 21st instant:

Resolved, That the Committee on Indian Affairs be, and

they are hereby, authorized to delegate one of their number to proceed, during the ensuing recess of Congress, to take testimony in the matter now on reference to said committee, touching certain frauds alleged to have been committed by Alexander Ramsay and others, in making payment of moneys to certain bands of the Sioux Indians; and that the member of said committee so to be delegated have power 10 proceed to such points as may be necessary, and to send for persons and papers, and swear witnesses, and take their testimony, and certify the same with other proofs to said committee for their report thereon at the next session of Congress.

Mr. HUNTER. I think that that is a very objectionable resolution. I think it a very bad practice to have committees of the Senate sitting in the recess. I believe that is not a fair and proper mode of investigating any question; still worse would it be for a committee to delegate its power to one single individual. It is a power which ought not to be exercised by any single member of Congress. It seems to me that the inquiry proposed by the resolution belongs to the Executive. We shall soon have a new Governor of the Territory, I presume, who will be ex officio Superintendent of Indian Affairs, and to him or to some special commissioner to be appointed by the Executive, would most properly be delegated such a duty as this. Are we to send our members, or the members of the House of Representatives, about the country as commissioners to take testimony? Surely there could be no practice more dangerous. I hope the Senate will not agree to it.

Mr. WALKER. I am aware that the opposition to, or the advocacy of, any matter which may be proposed in the Senate by the Senator from Virginia, comes with a great deal more force than anything which I, and perhaps the Committee on Indian Affairs, can say; but that there is anything so peculiar in this matter I am not able to perceive. The subject has been referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs. They have proceeded to a considerable extent in taking testimony. They find in that investigation that, with the witnesses which they have examined here, they can proceed but a short way in the inquiry. They have proceeded far enough, however, to see that this is an important matter, and that it ought to be investigated, and that the Senate ought to be fully informed about it. It is a matter which has been brought before the Senate upon memorialupon formal charges which I hold in my hand.

Mr. SEWARD. Who are they made by? Mr. WALKER. By persons residing in Minnesota. One of them is a Mr. Robinson, and another is a Mr. Sweetser. There are various depositions which the committee think it important

to make.

Mr. SEWARD. The Senator will excuse me for asking him to state the substance of the charges.

Mr. WALKER. An appropriation of $590,000 was made for the Sioux Indians. The substance of the charges is, that Governor Ramsay, who was the custodier of the money, got the currency of the United States exchanged for the paper of certain banks of the State of New York, upon which he made a large percentage; that he took the money to Minnesota; that he there employed a third person as agent to make the payment; that in making that payment the agent of the Government imposed upon the Indians the necessity of allowing a large percentage, alleged to be fifteen per cent., upon the money paid, before it could pass into the hands of the Indians; that the money that was set apart to be paid to the half-breed Indians was arbitrarily paid, and only to a certain portion, and withheld from the rest. The committee have proceeded, to a certain extent, to investigate the charges. They have arrived at a point which would show that there is a great deal of importance in it; but they can proceed no further for the reason that some members of the Legislature of Minnesota, which has lately been in session, and persons who reside there as missionaries and as citizens have not been here, and could not be got here in time to give us their evidence; but they can be sworn there, and their testimony taken.

I am aware, as I commenced by saying, that the Senator from Virginia occupies an important position here. He is chairman of the Committee on Finance, which connects itself peculiarly with the Executive Department; and Virginia also has the head of another committee which connects it

SENATE.

self still more with that Department; but the Senator has no Indians in his State, and he has no occasion to hear their clamorings, as I have. He does not know how the matter affects the local community. He can ill appreciate that there are thousands of Indians on the frontier of Minnesota, and among the pioneer settlements there, ready to do violence to protect their rights unless they see the Government moving with some prospect, and some hope to them, that they are to have their matters investigated. Is there any peculiarity in confiding to an individual the power of a dedimus protestatem to take testimony? Has not the gentleman, in courts of justice, frequently sued out these powers, and sent them to single individuals who could swear witnesses and return the testimony certified to the court? That is all that is proposed by the resolution. It is only proposed that a single member of the Committee on Indian Affairs shall be authorized to go on and complete the taking of the testimony during the recess, not to make a report, but to certify that testimony to the committee at the next session, so that they may have it under examination and report it, together with their report, to the Senate. It is alleged in a letter which accompanies the charges that the individual has had to exercise his personal influence to keep the Indians, who have arms in their hands, from doing personal violence to the I hope violence will not result. For one, I am willing to lend myself to the duty of trying, if possible, to prevent it. I cannot see that there is any enormity in the proposition contained in the resolution. If it be that a commissioner is to be sent out, as the Senator proposes, be it so; but my candid opinion is that it will cost vastly more than what the committee propose will cost. A member of the committee can take the testimony and bring it here, and the Committee on Indian Affairs can make their report upon it. I cannot see, situated as we are, that we should not be presumed to feel a deeper interest in the matter than the Senator from Virginia; and I cannot well appreciate, unless the design of his opposition is personal, why it is thrown with so much strenuousness and violence against the matter. I am one of those who have lived_long, for the period of my life, upon the frontiers. I have been much in contact with the Indians. I know a great deal of their character. I know the necessity of keeping something in motion to satisfy them that the Government intends to give a respectful consideration to their rights, and that is all that is proposed here.

inhabitants.

Mr. BRODHEAD. I have heard a great deal about these charges against Governor Ramsay, and I think it very proper that I should say a word or two with regard to him.

Mr. WALKER. Will the Senator allow me to say that in what I have said I did not intend to intimate anything against Governor Ramsay. I have only stated that charges have been made, and intimated the importance of having them inquired into, by taking testimony.

Mr. BRODHEAD. I have heard of these charges, and it is proper that I should say that I have had an acquaintance of several years with Governor Ramsay. I have served with him for four years in the House of Representatives. I also served in the Legislature of the State of Pennsylvania while he was a clerk of the House. I think therefore that it is due from me to say, that while I served with him he maintained a good character for integrity. I say nothing about his political views, for I differed with him on that subject. I think it is proper that these charges should be investigated. It is due to Governor Ramsay, and I confess I cannot see any more proper mode of making the investigation than that proposed by the Committee on Indian Affairs. I think it would be quite as economical as any mode that can be pursued. I think the investigation is important, and I do not think it would be objected to by those making the charges, or by those against whom they are made I understand that both sides are demanding an investigation, though I do not know what tribunal either party desires. I have had no communication either with the persons making the charges or the accused.

I can add, further, that I did not vote for the treaties under which the payments were made; it is unnecessary for me to state the reasons. But I