32D CONG.....2D SESS. ent silver coins. They have already been en- I know, Mr. Speaker, we are told if we will The Coinage Question—Mr. Dunham. inal value, but it sells as a commodity at its market Another important provision of this bill is, that Mr. BROOKS. I do not intend to interrupt the gentleman, but would ask what he designs to do with this bill when he has finished his speech? If he proposes to put it on its passage, it will be necessary to make some inquiries as he goes along. Mr. DUNHAM. I am ready to answer any inquiry which may be put to me. I intend, at the close of my remarks, to call for the previous question, and leave the House to put the bill on its passage, continue the discussion of it in the House, or to refer it to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, as it may see proper. Mr. FREEMAN. I will ask the gentleman from Indiana whether he has the least idea of putting a bill of this importance on its passage without any discussion in the House? Mr. DUNHAM. The question has been before Congress for nearly the whole of two sessions. Mr. FREEMAN. Before your committee, I suppose. This is proved by the state of things existing in Mr. DUNHAM. It has been before the Senate, and this particular subject of seigniorage has been discussed upon one side, at any rate, in this House, as the gentleman from New York [Mr. BROOKS] will recollect; and if he does not, I will endeavor to remind him and the House of a speech delivered by him upon it, at the last session. Mr. BROOKS. With the gentleman's permission, I will state that a proposition for seigniorage was then introduced, and on a vote by yeas and nays received only fifty votes in the affirmative. Mr. DUNHAM. Í am happy the gentleman that the gentleman made a speech against it, upon HO. OF REPS. rior minds who cannot grasp so great a question as quickly as the committee to which he belongs. We should have an opportunity to examine. Mr. DUNHAM. Tam obliged to the gende man for his compliment. There are some genue men who, from their manner at least, think they understand these questions as well as the Com mittee on Ways and Means. I do not want to force the House to anything, and if there be any general objection to the call for the previous question, I shall not make it. I designed giving the House the opportunity to pass this bill, or to refer it, which will be to defeat it, as to it seemed best. I am sure there is nothing unfair or improper in that. But I wish to reply to one remark of the gotleman right here. I repeat, we do not change the whole present silver currency of the country We do not depreciate it. We do not propose is change its value in any way. We do not props in to recoin the whole silver coin of the country. We propose to leave the existing coin where it now s where it has been for at least the last three year that is, leave it to sell in the market for its visi as merchantable bullion. We propose to buy s much of this merchantable bullion, at its att market value, as may be necessary, and out of t to make and put in circulation, for the convenient of those who want it, a new coin, of the same de nominations, to be sure, but of a different wege and value, the stamp upon which shall truly ind cate its value. Mr. MILLSON. I wish to make a suggestion to the gentleman from Indiana, which I trust vi meet with his approval, as I doubt not it will meet with the concurrence of the House. This is renty a very important bill, and I am sure the gentleman himself would not desire the House should rea on it without the opportunity for mature exams ation. I merely suggest to the gentleman that. instead of terminating the debate and foreing is House to a vote, he will allow the bill, by geeral consent, to be referred to the Committee of the Whole. Then he may move a reconedes tion of that vote, which he may call up to-morres, and thereby make the bill the first one in order fr discussion, and give the House an opportunity f examining in print the amendments which hav been proposed to the bill by the Committee Ways and Means, as well as those submitted f the gentleman himself. Mr. DUNHAM. I have remedied the whit difficulty. I have already made a motion which will keep this bill before the House. I have to desire, I repeat again, to force this bill to a POE in the House; and I say again, if there is any ge eral objection to my calling the previous question, I will not do it. Certainly, the House have n their power to vote down the call for the previOIN question, or not. I hope that gentlemen will n further interrupt me, until I get through with the general remarks which I wish to make in explane tion of this bill, and then I am willing to asswa any question which may be put. To return to the question, I repeat, sir, we propose to impose a charge or seigniorage upon u coinage of gold and silver, to cover the actual erpense of the coinage, instead of defraying that ex Mr. FREEMAN. As the gentleman designs pense, as heretofore, out of the public Treasury. putting this bill on its passage by calling for the This is a very important provision, and notWid previous question, I desire to propound an inquiry standing the gentleman tells me there was at the to him. I consider any change in the metallic last session a vote of fifty only in favor of it, i currency of the country would interfere greatly trust gentlemen will give it their careful consitwith the interests of the people. Now, the generation, and that it will in consequence meet with tleman has stated that gold is now the standard of much more favor at this time. What do we provalue in this country, and that silver was much pose? more valuable than gold, and, therefore, I take it, not the standard of value. Another objection urged against this proposed member of the House will see that that is a very Mr. BROOKS. Let me correct the gentleman in point of fact. He proposes to levy only the actual expenses of the coinage. The amount of coinage at the Philadelphia Mint was, last year. about $50,000,000. One half of one per cent, segr iorage will be $250,000 annually. The exper of the Mint at Philadelphia, as I stated and provi the other day, are now nearly obtained out of the depositors, because the Mint, in the estimates, de mands $250,000 as the expenses for maintaining self, and says, at the same time, that it only wars only $48,000 out of the public Treasury, les ving about $200,000 to come out of the public. Now, this bill proposes to add $250,000 more, to come out of the depositors, making $410,000. Mr. DUNHAM. The gentleman has fallen 32D CONG.....2D SESS. nto an error; in this, that he has taken the appropriation for the Mint at Philadelphia alone as the ppropriation for the whole Mint establishmenthe Mint at Philadelphia and all the branches. In iscussing this question of seigniorage, I propose rst to inquire what coinage is, its object, and ffect? I apprehend that much of the opposition which exists to the charge of seigniorage results rom the want of a proper understanding of the ■ature, purposes, and effects of coining. Coining Loes not fix or control the value of the currency. t is a simple manufacture of the metals into pieces -f a convenient form and size, and marking upon ach its respective quality and quantity. For intance, when we see an American silver dollar, we know by the stamp upon it that it has been xamined and tested by the proper officers, and hat it contains four hundred and twelve and a alf grains of silver nine tenths fine. When we ee a gold dollar, we know in the same way that t contains twenty-five and eight tenths grains of -old of the same fineness of silver, (nine tenths.) This does not fix its value, but it simply marks uality and quantity, for the convenience of those who have occasion to receive or pay it, and saves hem the trouble of having to examine its quality, r weigh it to ascertain its quantity. The value 8 then known by the market, and it is paid and eceived accordingly. The law fixes the quality and quantity of metal n our coins, and when parties do not themselves a their contracts stipulate the quantity and fineess of these metals, which are to be paid and reeived, which they may always do, but stipulate he name and number of the coins, the law suplies the hiatus by presuming that the parties muually referred to the law, made it a part of their ontract, and meant the quality and quantity of he metal contained in the stipulated name and umber of coins. Thus, when one agrees to pay nd the other to receive a hundred dollars, the full erms of the contract, as construed by the law, re to pay and receive the number of grains of -old or silver of the legal standard (nine tenths ne) contained in one hundred dollars. This beng the case, who ought to pay the expense of the oinage, of this manufacture? Should not those The Coinage Question-Mr. Dunham. allowed in receiving it for the enhancement of It is possible that coin may be remelted into bul- We are coining over fifty millions a year. Who is so simple as to suppose that this is for circulation among our own citizens? Who so simple as to believe that even the largest portion of it is now in the country? Who does not know that we have been defraying the expense of this immense coinage for the convenience and profit of New York brokers? Is it not time to put a stop to this? Is it not time that those who derive the HO. OF REPS. and the frequency of the exchange of that wealth, leaving no traces of its having passed through our dominions other than an empty Treasury, and the profits of Wall street brokers, ship-owners, insurance and express companies? Might we not as well at once pay these profits out of the Treasury? The gentleman from New York, [Mr. BROOKS,] in a speech which he made a few months ago, talked most learnedly about this seigniorage being a "relic of feudality. He said that it ought to belong to the Grand Seignior, because it is seigniorage. Indeed, he talked so very learnedly about feudalities and feudalisms, that I almost imagined that he was himself a relic of those ancient times when men talked most flippantly about that which they least understood. Does he not know, does not this House know, that seigniorage then meant something very different from what it does as used in this bill? Then it was a tax upon the coinage to replenish the treasury of the feudal lord; here it means simply a charge, not for a revenue, but for the actual expenses of the manufacture of the coin. The gentleman seemed to me to under-estimate very much the intelligence of the House, when he sought to appeal to your prejudices, by talking about such a charge as being a relic of the feudal times of antiquity, in order to deter you from adopting it, though it might be ever so proper and judicious in itself. FEBRUARY 2, 1853. The bill being again under considerationMr. DUNHAM. I wish to inquire how much time I have left? The SPEAKER. About fifteen minutes, according to the recollection of the Chair. Mr. DUNHAM. I am sorry it is so short, and I will endeavor to condense my remarks as much as possible. Mr. Speaker, the first thing to which I wish to call attention this morning, is a matter to which the gentleman from New York [Mr. BROOKS] alluded on yesterday. His statement was, that we did not require one half of one per cent. seigniorage to pay the expenses of the Mint, and stated the fact that the Mint at Philadelphia only asked appropriation of $48,000 out of the Treasury who are benefited by it, and in proportion to the profits of this coinage should pay the expense an appry its expenses for the next fiscal year, in benefit they receive? Will any gentleman tell me why a man who only receives and pays out one undred dollars of this coin in the course of a year hould pay as much and perhaps more of the exenses of maintaining this Mint than the one who may handle ten thousand or ten millions! And et this may be the case so long as we raise our evenues by a tariff, and the expense of the Mint s paid out of the Treasury. If we charge upon The coinage a seigniorage sufficient to defray that expense, we make those who have the benefit of he manufacture pay the expenses of it. When you change bullion into coin, into a form which you may more conveniently use, it is just as much manufactured as if you had manufactured t into jewelry. He who has the benefit of the manufacture should pay the expenses in one case as much as in the other. When the bullion merchant takes his gold or silver bullion to the Mint, and has it manufactured into coin, that coin is worth just as much more than the bullion as the abor is worth which has been expended in its manufacture, and consequently he should pay for hat labor. It is for his convenience when he comes to pay it out to others. It saves him the ime and labor which would otherwise have been -equired to weigh it. It saves him the time, labor, and annoyance which it would have taken to ascertain and agree upon its fineness. It saves all dispute as to quantity or quality. This is worth more than the cost of manufacture. It makes his commodity worth that much more. He can, therefore, afford to pay for it, and he ought to pay for it. When he parts with it, it will bring him that much more; for as the person who will receive it will have all the convenience of the manufacture, he will allow for its enhanced value. The abor employed in the manufacture becomes incorporated into the article as much as the raw material, and like it contributes to its intrinsic value, and like it passes from hand to hand in its circulation. There can be no loss of the seigniorage so long as the coin remains, for whoever possesses that has the benefit and value of the manufacture, and has NEW SERIES.No. 13. to addition to the profits it now derives from coinage. It is very true that that Mint only asks an appropriation out of the Treasury of $48,000 for the next fiscal year; yet its whole expenses will be considerably more than that. For instance, during the past year-and it is a matter to which I wish to call the especial attention of the House-there have been coined at Philadelphia 18,663,500 three-cent coins, making $559,905; as these coins are of the propor tionate weight to our other silver coins, and are made of metal only seven hundred and fifty thousandths fine, instead of nine hundred, the proper standard, their nominal is twenty per cent. above their intrinsic value, or in other words, they are actually worth but two and a half cents each. There But, sir, we are told that the Government monopolizes and controls the coinage, and should, therefore, bear the expense. That must be a curious monopoly where the monopolizer pays all the expense, and those upon whom it operates have all the profit. The Government forces no man to bring his raw material to the Mint to be coined. He may bring it or not, as he pleases; he will not bring it unless it is to his interest. If he brings it, the Government puts its stamp upon it, but it does not prohibit him from putting his own upon and selling it, or from having it manufactured into plate or jewelry. The Government stamp may increase its value, but it cannot diminish or limit it, for we see silver with that stamp upon it selling above the stamped price. The law says that his creditors shall take this coin in pay-fore, as silver is received at the Mint at its proper ment of their debts, but it does not say that they shall receive no other. It says that they shall take it at the value marked upon it; it does not say they shall allow no more for it. It may, therefore, be to his advantage to have his bullion manufactured into coin, but it cannot be to his disadvantage. Why, then, should the Government coin it free any more, I repeat, than it should make it into plate or jewelry? But we are told it is for the general good of the people that there should be plenty of coin; therefore the Government should pay for the manufacture. So it is that there should be plenty of iron, flour, and salt. Shall the Government pay for their manufacture also, or shall those pay who use them, that have the benefit of them? And if because it is useful to have an abundance of gold coin, the expense of the manufacture should be paid out of the Treasury, so as to encourage gold to come into the country to be coined, why should not the freight from California and Australia be also paid out of the Treasury? Why should we not pay a premium for its production? Nay, why not have it dug at public expense? And all to what good, when the irresistible laws of trade immediately sweep it away, and distribute it among the commercial nations of the world, in proportion to their wealth value, and made into these coins, which are then paid out by tale at their nominal value, the profit from this source last year was over $100,000. This is what I call a seigniorage, and a very heavy one, too. There is also a profit of the same character arising from the copper coinage, and a charge for refining or parting the metals. These profits go towards defraying the expenses of the Mint. The estimated profits from the coinage of threecent pieces, for the next fiscal year, is $70,000; if, however, we should change the fineness of that coin to the regular standard, which I think we ought, by all means, to do, we must add this amount to the $48,000 to be appropriated out of the Treasury; and if the gentleman had taken the pains to examine, he would have discovered that this sum was asked upon the estimate that there would remain, unexpended, of the present year's means, to commence the next, $38,000, which must also be added, making, in all, $156,000, to come out of the Treasury for Philadelphia alone. If we pass this bill making these new coins, and do not change the standard of the three-cent pieces, there will still be less demand for them, and hence less profit from their manufacture. But, sir, this bill does not propose to apply the revenues from this seigniorage entirely to the 32D CONG.....2D SESS. Delay of Public Business-Mr. Houston, of Alabama. expenses of that particular Mint or branch at which they are raised. It will make them a common fund, out of which the expenses of the coinage at the Mint, and all of the branches, are to be defrayed, irrespective of the place of collection. Now, sir, we know that it will cost a larger per cent. to coin money in California, where provision has already been made for a branch Mint, than at Philadelphia, as it now does at the branches at New Orleans, Dahlonega, and Charlotte. Whilst it costs less than one half of one per cent. at Philadelphia, it costs about three per cent. at Dahlonega and Charlotte. And I will suggest here, that the sooner we abolish those two, the better for the Treasury and the country. We are continuing them at a large annual expense, when neither of them coins in a whole year as much as the Mint at Philadelphia does in two days. They ought to be abolished at once. The ordinary expenses of the Mint at Philadelphia for the fiscal year '51-'52 was $271,213 95, of which $75,000 was appropriated out of the Treasury, and the remainder was obtained from its profits or reductions, of which, as before stated, over one hundred thousand dollars were received from the coinage of three-cent pieces. The amount expended out of the Treasury at the Dahlonega branch, was $10,800; at the Charlotte branch $10,615, and at the New Orleans branch about $98,000. If we abolish the three-cent profits, the amount to be met during the next fiscal year out of the Treasury or by seigniorage, for ordinary expenses, according to the estimates of the Treasury Department, will be, for Philadelphia $156,000; for Dahlonega $11,000; for Charlotte $11,600; for New Orleans $121,000; making the whole amount of expenditures to be met from the Treasury or by seigniorage $299,600. I presume it is known to the House that three-cent and cent coins are only made at Philadelphia. Now, sir, the coinage for the calendar year 1852 was: At Philadelphia. . At New Orleans. At Charlotte..... At Dahlonega. Total........ .$52,403,669 4,622,000 396,739 473,815 .$57,896,218 A seigniorage of one half of one per cent. would be $289,481 09. So that supposing the future rate of coinage to continue equal to that of the past year, the gentleman from New York and the House will see, that if you hereafter make your three-cent pieces of standard metal, the seignforage proposed by this bill is not exorbitant, and will not defray the actual expenses of the coinage, much less yield a profit to the Treasury. It is true if this bill shall pass, so as to authorize this proposed new silver coinage, an income by way profits will, or three years, be derived from that, in addition to this seigniorage, but this will not long continue. The expenses of the California Mint will also have to be added, when it shall be put into operation. There is another large loss to the Government from the present system of coinage. The bullion fund kept at the Mint for the convenience of depositors is about $6,000,000. This fund is to enable the Mint to receive the bullion of the depositor, assay it, and ascertain its value, and at once pay him for it in coin, which is usually done in a few hours, thus saving him from delay and loss of interest. The interest on this fund alone is a loss to the Government, for the benefit of the depositors, of $360,000, for which no charge is now made, nor is proposed to be made by this bill. Sir, I wish, before leaving this subject, to again call the attention of the House to the enormous coinage of these depreciated three-cent piecesover half a million of dollars in a single year. Why, sir, if we do not soon make some change in our other silver coins, the whole silver currency of the country will soon consist of these three-cent coins and the old worn-out clipped Spanish coins, whose intrinsic value is depreciated about twelve per cent. on an average. Mr. OLDS. And yet such is the demand for small coin they pass current. Mr. DUNHAM. Yes, sir; the demand for silver coin for change is so great that they readily pass current, notwithstanding this vast depreciation. Which is the best, I submit, to leave things thus to go on, and compel the people to use these old, worn-out, depreciated coins, to have the country filled with these debased three-cent pieces, or to make a currency of the proper standard, adequate to the wants and conveniences of the people? The manufacture and circulation of these threecent coins should satisfy gentlemen that even a high seigniorage will not drive the metals from your Mints, when the business and wants of the people require them to go there for manufacture, and that a small reduction of the quantity of metal in a coin does not prevent its circulation when it is made up by its convenience. That convenience causes circulation as well as the intrinsic value. SENATE. worth as much more than the bullion as that eas will derive a profit. The result will be, that is a few years we shall have an abundant surmir ( specie currency for the convenience of the country, and a comparatively small coinage will be s cient to maintain it, whilst now we have et amense coinage at great expense, but a defcient of specie for circulation. DELAY OF PUBLIC BUSINESS. SPEECH OF HON. G. S. HOUSTON, OF ALABAMA, IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, February 16, 1853, In reply to Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia, concers the causes of delay in the transaction of a Public Business. The CHAIRMAN. The time fixed by the Ha for the termination of debate on this bill has 3* arrived, and the gentleman from Alabama, tamaş reported the bill, is, under the rules, entitles a address the committee on it for one hour. We are told if we make this charge for coinage we shall drive the productions of our gold mines from our own to the British Mint for coinage. Well, sir, if it must eventually go to the English market, is it not better that it should go there directly, rather than it should be brought this way merely to be stopped here in transitu long enough to be coined, at such immense expense, and then go immediately to that market? If it must go there-if the laws of trade require it to go there, it will go, and it is better to let it go as bullion than as coin, when, as the gentleman from New York himself shows, the impress of our eagle is effaced so soon as it touches British soil. This charge for coinage will send no more gold to England, will not control the laws of trade, will not cause importations or exportations. Gentlemen will find proof of this in silver. We coin silver here free, but in England they charge a seigniorage of some nine per cent. If you take a pound of standard silver to the Mint, they coin it into sixtysix shillings and give back sixty-two shillings-public keeping four shillings to pay for the coinage; or, which is in effect the same thing, they buy silver at sixty-two shillings the pound by tale, and coin that pound into sixty-six shillings. You may call it seigniorage, or just what you please, but they make so much by the coinage. Mr. BROOKS. You said upon gold. Mr. DUNHAM. Oh, no; you misunderstood me. They buy an ounce of gold at £3 17s. 9d., in Bank of England notes, and they coin that ounce into £3 17s. 10 d., which is one and a half penny, or about three cents seigniorage upon the ounce. Mr. BROOKS. Will the gentleman allow me to interrupt him for a moment? Mr. DUNHAM. I should be glad to do so, but I cannot, for I have very little time left. There is also a seigniorage of one and a half per cent. upon the coinage of silver in France, and there is a seigniorage upon the coinage of silver by every other civilized Government, so far as we have any reliable account. Yet we find this silver bullion not coming to the United States where we coin it free; but its to Europe, being thither by the wants of commerce, or the drawn ible laws of trade, to Mints imposing this enormous seigniorage. This shows that seigniorage cannot control the exportation or importation of silver bullion. Every man who at all understands the principles of political economy, must see in a moment, that where property has to be exchanged by means of a circulating medium-where commercial necessities require a circulating medium, there will be the demand for the material which composes, and there will it go. The gentleman says that where the bullion of the world goes, there will go the commerce of the world; and he seems to infer that the gold takes with it the commerce. But is not that a most absurd proposition? Does not the bullion go where the commerce exists, and where it requires that bullion for a circulating medium for the convenience and necessity of that commerce? The gentleman takes the cause for the effect. This seigniorage will have only this influence upon the exportation and importation of gold and silver: it will induce those who desire to make payments in Europe to make them in bullion; or, if made in coin, it will tend to cause the reimportation of that coin; for if, as before stated, it is worth as much more than the bullion from which it was made as the cost of manufacturing, he who exports it to a market where it is only recognized as bullion, will lose that much, and he who reimports it from such a market to where it can again be used, and is needed as currency, and therefore where it is again Mr. HOUSTON said: Mr. Chairman, on y terday when this bill was taken up, it wa NCC 31 intention to occupy any portion of the hour d which I am entitled under the rules; but the coacter of the debate which has taken place maten: to some extent necessary that I should makt, u least, a brief explanation, and, at the same time to give, with all proper respect to other gestene my opinion as to the causes of obstruction of business. I regret that the gentleman from Georgia STEPHENS] thought it proper for him to makin assault upon the organization of this House. L seemed to me that his remarks did not come lette mately within the range of a proper debat so far did he, in my view, travel out of the fire s' pertinent discussion, that I am almost led to betere he had some other than the ostensible or a view. I did not suppose that the relations beve the honorable gentleman and the Speaker, or be tween him and the committees of the Hou, were of such a character as to induce so severe & crite cism as that in which he has seen fit to induce I am willing to admit that I have not discharg my duty to my own entire satisfaction. I take i we have but few members who have discharge. their entire duty. We all have short-com. The frailties of our nature are such as to renderr almost impossible for any of us to come flyi our sense of duty. The gentleman possibly reaches the standard fixed by himself. If he does, I gratulate his constituents on having a represen tive here who, at all times, discharges his day the representative of their interest in this House. I desire to say, in the beginning of my remar that upon no occasion during this Congress ta I made a motion or given a vote for the purpe of delaying business or postponing proper on any proposition; and for the correctness of in statement, I appeal to the members, as wel 191 the Journals of this body. I have usually bet punctual in my attendance upon the meeungs d the Committee on Ways and Means, and as a this House. I have generally voted upon proce sitions that have arisen, and in everything that I can properly say) I have faithfully labora to discharge my duty, and to prove myself worr of the trust which has been confided to me by my constituents and by this House. m Mr. Chairman, I hope I may be excused fr recurring very briefly to the action of this Co gress. At the first session, after the formation of committees, every member knows, and none bez than the gentleman from Georgia, that the publi printing (necessary to enable committees to inves tigate subjects committed to them) was not ex cuted in due season. The printing of that session is not, up to this period, entirely completed. Al of the bills upon which the Committee on Ways and Means could act, in the absence of that print ing, were reported to the House within the thy days prescribed by the rules; and I, as its chairman, was instructed to report to this body, that the reason why some of the bills could not be reported within the prescribed time, was, that we could not examine the various items which they 32D CONG.....2D SESS. Delay of Public Business-Mr. Houston, of Alabama. Contained in a satisfactory manner without the ecessary public documents. I made that report. If the honorable gentleman had been disposed o accuse me of delinquency, then would have been he time for him to have done it; and it does seem o me as singular that he has postponed the performance of such a task until the close of the Congress, when we are within a few days of seprating. If the gentleman will take the trouble o institute an examination, he will find that the Committee on Ways and Means, at the last session, eported the appropriation bills within the usual ime, notwihtstanding the difficulties and delays to which I have already called the attention of this committee. The fortification bill was reported as ate as July or August. During this session the public printing has been more promptly executed, and the Committee on Ways and Means have, Consequently, had better facilities for the investigation of the subjects which have been committed to their charge. Hence, not only the four bills required by the rules to be reported within the first thirty days, but every one for which estimates had been submitted, were reported within that time. The estimates for the Post Office appropriation bill, as well as those for the ocean mail steam service, were not submitted to Congress until late in January, and within a few days after those estimates were sent to the House of Representatives, the Committee on Ways and Means reported those bills. The question then presents itself, if the bills were thus reported, why were they not acted upon? That brings up the whole difficulty-that is the matter of controversy which has been occupying the attention of the House for the last day or two. Early in March a special order was made, and, with the exception of a few days, special orders were continued, for a portion of the day from that time until about the close of the session. The homestead bill became the special order of the day on the 2d of March, and it was continued until the 12th of May, at which time it passed this House. I do not mean to say that the merits of the bill itself were discussed every day, but that most of the time that measure was ostensibly under consideration. On the 24th of May, Congress made another special order, appropriating the morning hour to the reception of reports from committees, to the exclusion of all other business. Under that special order the morning hour was mostly occupied for the residue of the session, and not only the morning hour was thus employed, but occasionally bills coming before the House under that order would occupy the whole day. the House under one of its rules, which authorized the Committee on Printing to report at any time, and in that way making the report a privileged question. After the reports were made, they were generally (and I believe in every instance) debated in the House, and for the time precluded action upon anything else. Gentlemen will remember that the printing propositions created great warmth of feeling on all sides of the House-so much so that the House would not pass from them to other things, even if it had been in order to make a motion for that purpose. During all of the time covered by special orders it was not in order to move the consideration of any other subject-it required unanimous consent to pass from them. The reports from the Committee on Printing in many respects are very similar in effect upon other business to a special order. These were causes of delay at the first session of this Congress, which, under the circumstances, could not well be avoided. Those special orders were made at a time when, I take it for granted, it was not the expectation of the House that they would occupy so much of its time and attention; but when made, they were fastened upon us, and we could not relieve ourselves from the difficulty without obtaining a vote which, under ordinary circumstances, could not be obtained. The gentleman from Georgia in his remarks on yesterday drew a contrast between the condition of things now and the condition of things twentyfive years ago. He said that we ought to have such statesmen here now as we had then. My friend should remember that it is not every district which, in that particular, is equally blessed with his. When the people of a district do the best they can, they should not be assailed either directly or through their representative for having furnished members who do not happen to come up to the high standard of statesmanship set by other gentlemen. I do not think, however, the gentleman's contrast is sustained by the record, and if members of this committee will refer back to the action of Congress, from a very early period of the Government, they will find that at every short session of Congress, the appropriation bills became laws in the very last days of the session in nineteen cases out of twenty-from 1795 up to this time. So far, then, as the gentleman drew a contrast to the disadvantage of Congress at this time, his comparison does not hold good, and is not warranted by the history and facts of the case. Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. Will the gentleman allow me one word? Mr. HOUSTON. Certainly. Mr. STEPHENS. I was not speaking yesterday particularly of the appropriation bills. I The question may be asked, why the homestead was speaking of the vast accumulation of busibill was so long under discussion, and especially ness upon the Speaker's table, which was blockwhen the merits of the proposition were seldom ing up everything, and which we all understand. examined in the course of debate? If that ques- But the gentleman speaks particularly of the aption be asked of me, I will turn the inquirer over propriation bills. I think he will find himself in to the gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. STEPHENS,] an error in regard to the statement he has made. who (as he will remember) voted against and opIt has been usual for those bills to pass the last posed closing that debate, and thereby prevented day of the session, I grant that; but it has not the House from having an early vote upon the bill been usual that they should be so long delayed in and proposed amendments. I thought at the time, this House. They have usually passed this and the gentleman himself seems to think now, House at an early stage of the session, gone to judging from the course of remark in which he the Senate, come back, and remained over for on yesterday indulged, that much the largest por- amendment. It is usual, and it is not improper, tion of that discussion was irrelevant, and there- as the gentleman stated this morning, that they fore useless for any legislative purpose. Upon the should pass the last days of the session, but they occasion when an effort was made to close debate ought to have been discussed in this House before on that bill, so late as the 20th of April, the gen- and investigated. We are within a few days of the tleman voted against it-thereby aiding in a de- adjournment, and the civil and diplomatic bill is to feat of a proposition looking to the dispatch of be forced upon us. A resolution was passed this business. The gentleman interrupts me now, and morning to close debate in one hour upon a bill says it was a very good discussion, and that he appropriating millions of dollars. Two months did not vote to stop it at last. Let that be so; I of the session gone, and there has been no invespropose to show that he has generally been with tigation of the bill, which is not even read by secthose who have opposed efforts to close debate, tions at the Clerk's desk. The chairman of the and in that way has himself been instrumental in Committee on Ways and Means asked to take it the delay and obstruction of business. I am in up without a first reading, and voted for a propfavor of free and full debates. I like to hear proposition to close debate upon it in one hour. That ositions connected with our duties here thoroughly is his system of legislation, of which I complain. investigated, but I have generally been for closing Mr. HOUSTON. The gentleman is mistaken the debate when it wandered from the issues legit- in his facts again. I did not propose to close deimately arising from the proposition under consideration. My recollection is that the gentleman has usually pursued a different course. Aside from the special orders to which I have already referred, there were various questions connected with the public printing which came before bate in one hour. Mr. STEPHENS. I do not say the gentleman did. I say the House did. Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. I proposed the resolution to close this debate. There were some two or three hours yesterday consumed upon this Ho. OF REPS. bill, and if any solitary speaker touched a clause in it I am not aware of it. Mr. STEPHENS. I spoke of the resolution introduced to-day which was to stop debate in one hour. I did not say that the gentleman from Alabama moved it, but I say that he voted for it and the House sustained it. Mr. HOUSTON. The gentleman understands me and I do him. If his remark is worth anything, it will convey to the House and the country the idea, that there was only one hour's debate allowed on this bill, when the fact is, the bill occupied all day yesterday, except some business in the morning. The gentleman made a speech upon it, and had an opportunity to discuss its features and provisions. Did he propose to ascertain the propriety of appropriating "the millions" of which he speaks? Did he touch the question of these millions at all? Did he propose to call the attention and consideration of the House to any provision of the bill? He did not. Then why should he complain? I did not intend to dispute with the gentleman as to who offered the resolution closing debate I was not attempting to play upon words. I speak of the resolution offered by the gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. JONES] as a movement of the House, and say that the gentleman is mistaken in his understanding of the facts. It is a mistake to say that debate was stopped on this bill in one hour. There were several hours allowed; and if gentlemen have shown a disposition to debate anything and everything except the bill, then debate should be closed. But the gentleman says I asked that the first reading should be dispensed with. Does he not know that such is the usual practice with appropriation bills? When did an appropriation bill come up in Committee of the Whole that the first reading was not dispensed with by unanimous consent, and its second reading proceeded with for amendments? Mr. STEPHENS. I dislike to interrupt the gentleman, but I never knew the first reading dispensed with. I recollect very well in the last Congress that the honorable gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. BURT] held that it was out of order to make such a motion, and the whole bill was read through in the House. Mr. HOUSTON. I will not speak of the last Congress. I was not here. The gentleman from Georgia has certainly paid but little attention, in Committee of the Whole, to the appropriation bills. I assure him that so far as I am concerned, I have taken up no appropriation bill since I have been a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, in which we have not, by unanimous consent, dispensed with the first reading. This, however, is an unimportant matter, and I would not have noticed it but for the fact that the gentleman alluded to it as if it were a new thing under the sun, and for the purpose of creating the impression that I am asking the House to do an unusual thing in the progress and dispatch of the public business. But the gentleman says that the appropriation bills have usually passed before this time. In that he is also mistaken. I may not know what he means by "usually." I am at a loss to know whether he intends to apply it to the last Congress, to the Congress before that, or to all preceding Congresses. I have not had an opportunity of examining very carefully upon that point; but I know that at this period of the last Congress, the bills were not so far advanced as they are now, and at the Thirtieth Congress they were but little if any in advance of those bills at a corresponding period of this. It is true that some of the bills that are now unacted upon by the House, were in that Congress disposed of earlier in the session than this; but some of the bills that have been acted upon by the House at this session were unacted upon at the same period of that Congress. It is therefore difficult to say what is usual in regard to the time at which the appropriation bills pass the House. The gentleman says "everything is pell-mell;" that there is great confusion; that the Speaker fails to do his duty; there is a want of confidence in the heads of committees; the organization of the House is defective; and he gives these things as the cause of the obstruction of business in the House. Mr. Chairman, I would like any gentleman to tell me how the Speaker, or any committee or member of the House, could have cleared the Speaker's table? 32D CONG.....2D SESS. Delay of Public Business-Mr. Houston, of Alabama. Was it possible? Is it possible now? If so, point out the course. Could it have been done in any other way than by the coöperation of a majority of the members of this body? Sir, the responsibility is upon that majority who have cast the votes, and not upon the Speaker, or upon any particular committee or member. My friend from Georgia understands this as well as any one else, and his failure to present it constitutes my main objection to the course of remark in which he has indulged. I think he has failed to present a full statement of our condition, and the causes which led to it. If he had felt it his duty to present more fully the working of our rules, as well as the responsibility of the Presiding Officer, the heads of committees, and the members constituting the House, showing the responsibilty of each, I would have been content to let it pass without comment or reply. I feel that he has not done that; hence I have to commit this trespass upon the time and patience of the House. The gentleman said the chairmen of the committees ought to have influence enough to get the business before the House. Sir, the appropriation bills are all before the House, and were reported in due time; no one questions that. My own duty, as well as that of the committee over which I have the honor to preside, has been punctually discharged, as well as I or the committee could perform it. The Committee on Ways and Means have gone through a vast deal of labor and investigation in preparing its bills for the action of the House. The bills now upon the Speaker's table are not measures which have proceeded from that committee. They are not bills over which I or that committee have control beyond that which may be exercised by other members; and the Speaker's table cannot be cleared, unless a majority determine that it shall be done, by proceeding in order. If a majority of the House think proper to go to that business, they can do so each day after the morning hour; and if that majority decide to transact other business, with them rests the responsibility, and it is idle to attempt to charge it upon the Speaker, or upon the committees, or individual members. Mr. Chairman, there are other causes which operate to obstruct and defeat legislation beside those to which allusion has been made. It is not always that even a majority of those who may be present are able to dispatch business. We very frequently find ourselves without a quorum, and have to resort to calls of the House for the purpose of securing the attendance of the number necessary to transact business. And in this connection, I propose to call the attention of gentlemen to a fact, which not only illustrates the view I am endeavoring to present, but also furnishes a very strong commentary which may be useful to my friend from Georgia. The gentleman from Georgia, on yesterday read some of us a lecture for not discharging our duty, and afterwards, while we were endeavoring to transact business, he absented himself, so that when the committee rose, we found ourselves in the House without a quorum, and consequently unable to pass the Post Office appropriation bill, in part for want of the attendance of that gentleman. He lectures us, and then retires, leaving the House without a quorum, and rendering it unable to take a single step in legislation. Nor is this all. Upon reference to the Journal of yesterday, it will be found that we were occupied for three quarters of an hour, probably longer, in the morning in calling the House, endeavoring to get a quorum. Was the honorable gentleman from Georgia at his post? Where was he? Where was he in the evening? I was here, endeavoring to act upon the measures before us; my friend was not; and although my efforts may be unavailing, and have been too much so to secure the dispatch of business as I desired, yet I am generally here when the House is in session, ready to do what little I can; and if we could only secure the attendance of the gentleman from Georgia, with his ability and his disposition to expedite business; if he would fully act out what we have a right to infer from his remarks, I flatter myself that we should be able to clear the Speaker's table before the end of the session, and accomplish for the good of the country much other necessary legislation. Let us in future, then, have no occasion for a call of the House. Let us obviate the necessity of such a pro ceeding and the consequent delay of business, by attending every morning at the hour of meeting, and remaining at our posts until the period of adjournment. But I suppose the Speaker is to blame because the gentleman from Georgia was not in his seat yesterday morning? And the Speaker is also to be unceremoniously arraigned and censured because that gentleman did not stay here yesterday afternoon to aid us in passing the Post Office appropriation bill. Or perhaps his absence is chargeable to the heads of committees, or the organization of the House. I should like to know what control the Speaker has over the outgoings and incomings of gentlemen. Mr. Chairman, in my opinion another great cause of the delay of business is what the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. NABERS] very properly calls "Buncombe speeches,' presidential harangues-party speeches-such debate as was had upon the homestead bill, (except a few of the speeches on that bill,) which the gentleman now says was a very proper one. It was eminently proper, in the estimation of the gentleman, to consume time upon that measure in debating whether General Scott was in the keeping of Seward, or the Democratic aspirants were true to their constitutional duties! I understand the gentleman as calling that a proper discussion upon a bill proposing to give land to the landless," as some of the friends of the homestead bill speak of it. Suppose General Scott was under the influence of Seward, was that any reason why you should or should not give the poor man a piece of land? And yet the gentleman maintains that such was a proper and desirable debate, and that it ought not to have been arrested. Sir, I have made no speech wandering from the subject under consideration, further than may have resulted from my want of ability to confine myself within the proper scope. I have made no presidential speeches during this Congress. The House will sustain me in that asser tion. A MEMBER. How will you apply your present speech to the subject under consideration? Mr. HOUSTON. Sir, I, together with other members, have been assailed as being responsible for the accumulation of bills on the Speaker's table, and I am endeavoring to show that the charge is not well founded. I presume that under these circumstances I will be excused for attempting to set the facts truly before the country. I am presenting facts which, in my judgment, conclusively show that the Committee on Ways and Means have at least labored faithfully in the discharge of its duties. But the gentleman from Georgia says that one reason the business has not been advanced is, that there has been a want of influence in the heads of committees. I believe that is the substance of his remarks. Well, sir, it may be true that they are wanting in influence; but I wish to prove to him that he mistakes the House and mistakes himself. He will recollect that he objected during the last session to my reporting from the Committee on Ways and Means the fortification bill, and the objection rendered it impossible for me to bring the bill before the House. I had a conversation with him upon the subject at the time, and I suppose he will say now, what he frankly said then, that he made that objection because he did not want that bill to pass. Am I right? Mr. STEPHENS. Yes, sir. Mr. HOUSTON. Then does not that furnish an argument against his statement? He objected because of his opposition to the bill, and not because he had objection to me. His objection was founded upon principle. He thought the country needed no more fortifications, and his opposition arising from principle, I hardly suppose he would have surrendered or relaxed it for any one. Another member objects, upon principle, to some other bill, and so on until you pass over the entire catalogue of members-all upon principle, and of course not to be yielded up until their judgments are convinced of the utility and propriety of the bill objected to. The purpose of the objection was to defeat the bill, and would not be withdrawn until the opposition to the measure, in the mind of the member objecting, should have Now, if the gentleman will pursue that course, why will he not allow other mem been overcome. HO. OF REPS. bers to do the same thing? There are various other propositions to which other gentlemen otject, and their objections being presented and pressed, create delay. During the summer-l think in the month of July-I made several astempts to report that bill, but met with objection until the occasion on which I did report it, wa those who had objected were absent. Mr. STEPHENS. My recollection is that the gentleman presented that bill in the latter part of the month of July. Mr. HOUSTON. Well, I suppose the late part of July is in the month of July, as well as the early part. Mr. STEPHENS. 1 do not wish to get into a discussion with the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means as to his efficiency in d charging his duties. That was not my object Nor did I design especially to arraign him or the head of any other committee before the House. B: the gentleman seems to be going into a defense of himself personally. Well, if he wishes to do that, I will say, that if the Committee on Ways and Means intended to report a fortification bil last session, it was their duty to have reported it long before they did. When they brought forward the measure, out of order, and at the heel of the session, I did avail myself of my right to defeat in that way. Mr. HOUSTON. Then the gentleman from Georgia will certainly not complain that other members avail themselves of the same right the he exercised on that occasion, and object to clearing the Speaker's table, or doing any other leg tion out of order, if by so doing they can defeats bill to which they are opposed. Mr. STEPHENS. Of course I do not. Mr. HOUSTON. That is one reason why business is delayed, and such action on his par does not seem to be consistent with his complaina of the tardiness of legislation. It is certainly not very proper in him to complain of the delay r reporting a measure, while he, in the exercise of a right conferred upon him by the rules of the House, interposed obstacles to prevent the i being reported at an earlier day. Mr. McLANAHAN. I have a word of ser sonal explanation which I desire to make. Ye terday, during the debate in this committee, entetaining proper respect for myself, and I am sure with proper courtesy towards the gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. STEPHENS,] I rose for the purpose of asking a question of him during the time be was addressing the committee. In justice to my self I must state, that when I rose to ask that ge tion I had no intention of exciting any ill-feeling upon the part of the gentleman from Georgia, nor can I believe he so understood me. I rose i ask a question which I supposed, considering the tenor of the remarks he was making, he m properly undertake to answer; but to my surre the gentleman saw fit to make a personal alusz to myself, which I see reported in the Republ The only objection I have to that report is the manner in which it stands before the country. The gentleman has just stated that he meant no disre spect to the heads of any of the committees this House, and I am happy to hear him mai? that statement. But I will read that portion of the report to which I allude: "Mr MCLANAHAN inquired how a chairman of a com mittee could make a report unless under the rules. The Committee on the Judiciary had not been called. "Mr. STEPHENS replied, that if the chairmen of commit tees had the confidence of the House, they could al their reports. "Mr. McLANAHAN said it was to be regretted the beads of committees could not command that confidence. Let the gentleman point them out. "Mr. STEPHENS replied, that perhaps he might begin sta point which would not be agreeable to the gentleman further argued that the neglect of business was owing to de members, and not to the rules." I remember then to have remarked to the gettleman from Georgia, after he uttered the first sentence in the last paragraph, that I did not interpose any objection to a full and free expression of his opinions upon that subject. The gettleman from Georgia then said that he was replying to the gentleman from North Carolina, [Mr. VENABLE.] I rose simply for the purpose of saying the report in the Republic was not correct, and having made that statement, I have nothing further to say on the subject. |