cases, because they themselves were the judges and jurors to determine the matter. To deny counsel in such cases, would be taking away that liberty which belonged to an accused. In such cases, it was right. But the present was one of a far different complexion. An office of honor, dignity, and responsibility, was sought; and, if his arguments were correct, which he took them to be, the cases were dissimilar. [MARCH 10, 1836. What are the principal objections which are urged against the application of the petitioner in this case? It is said lawyers will make long speeches, and we cannot spare time enough to hear these speeches. In his (Mr. V's) humble opinion, we shall not be relieved from talking disease rages so violently here as to preclude the hope that we shall gain the great desideratum of less talk from the exclusion of lawyers in this case, nor need honorable gentlemen apprehend that counsel, if admitted, will preoccupy the whole grouud, and thus leave us nothing to talk about. Who ever knew a subject exhausted here? After forty speeches, pro and con, topics plenty as blackberries still spring up before the imaginations of honorable gentlemen, and enable us but too often to prove that we were never converted to the maxim, that "brevity is the soul wit." cessors ever since the foundation of the Government, because we are wiser than they were, and will deny to the petitioner a privilege which, when requested, has always been granted to every petitioner for a seat here." For, be it distinctly remembered, sir, that there is not a case on record where this privilege to appear by counsel has been denied. If, within the last twenty or thirty It seemed to him that the pe-years, petitioners in cases of this description have not titioning member had had all the advocates that could, appeared by counsel, it is only because they have not with propriety, be accorded to him, as he had been heard asked the privilege of doing so. The contending parties before the committee by eminent counsel. Having been have either in most instances both been lawyers, or the so heard before the committee, and that committee hav- points involved have been few and simple, so that neither ing reported favorably to the petitioner, what more party deemed it an object to ask for the privilege of could he ask? Was not the commitee able to present appearing by counsel. to the House all the facts which the petitioner's counsel spread before them? It seemed to him that all that could reasonably be asked had been granted to the petitioner. If he supposed his rights were invaded, he would be the last man to raise his voice against him. Mr. A. H. SHEPPERD said, to have a correct knowl-long speeches, whether we admit lawyers or not. The edge of the matter, it would be necessary to review the circumstances attending the proposition then under consideration. The gentleman from Kentucky made a report from the Committee of Elections, accompanied by a motion that the subject be made the order for a certain day, and that the gentleman petitioning for the seat be permitted to appear and be heard either by himself or by counsel. Some doubts arose as to the propriety of the motion, and, in the mean time, a report came in from the minority of the committee, and a paper from the sitting member. Some dedate ensued, when the gentleman from New York [Mr. HARD] moved that the petitioner be permitted to take his seat within the bar of the House. His colleague [Mr. BINUM] then moved an additional proposition, that upon the main question the petitioner have leave to be heard by counsel. On the next morning after this, a friend of the petitioner informed the House that the petitioner did not wish counsel, and on the next day, again, his colleague, [Mr. BYNUM,] after consulting with the petitioner, ascertained that he had changed his opinion. In that state of the case the vote was taken and decided against admitting counsel; and at the earliest possible moment the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. SPANGLER] came forward and moved a reconsideration. As a matter of justice and consistency to the petitioner, Mr. S. wished the broadest resolution offered which the House could adopt. He was in favor of giving him the greatest privilege; and if a legal question should arise, then he would give him counsel if he wished it. He would let him have it when-agement to their understanding to hear counsel in all ever it was needed. If counsel was needed, he would give it without searching over musty records for a precedent. He had great respect for the petitioner, and he knew he was not a lawyer by profession. He sincerely hoped that the House would reconsider its vote, as he did not wish that this negative should apply for the first time to an individual from his own State. If we admitted counsel, we might be pretty sure that the controlling points in the case would be presented to us by them. Courtesy and a sense of responsibility would induce honorable gentlemen to listen to counsel; and if the attainment of truth was our object, it would be far more profitable to listen to methodical, well-digested argument of counsel, learned and respectable, as counsel always were, who appeared at the bar of this House, than to crude and desultory lucubrations from other quarters, however honorable. What pledge had we that the points involved in this case were so simple and easy to be disposed of? The honorable chairman of the Committee of Elections, [Mr. CLAIBORNE,] a few days ago hadadmonished him (Mr. V.) most eloquently, not to come to a precipitate conclusion upon the merits of this case, and warned the House that the questions presented by the two reports were complicated and multifarious; and if judges learned in the law deemed it no dispar matters upon which they were called to adjudicate, he could see no good reason in favor of our wrapping ourselves in our robes of self-sufficiency, and saying, in a case of such interest, not only to the petitioner, but to the electors of the district where the contending gentlemen reside, "We are too wise to be illuminated by counsel." There was no doubt that the vote a few days ago resulted from the belief that the petitioner did not want counsel. He now tells you, through gentlemen on this floor, that he is desirous to have the aid of counsel, and it would be as unreasonable as it was unprecedented to refuse to gratify him. He Mr. VANDERPOEL said he was one of those who, a few days ago, voted to allow the petitioner the privilege of appearing by counsel; and with all due respect for a majority of the House, which negatived his request, he must be permitted to say that he was surprised at the result on that occasion. Some very queer arguments The honorable gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. had been urged in the progress of this discussion; and GRENNELL] had stated an objection to the allowance of if he had not the utmost confidence in the modesty, as counsel, which, to his mind, was wholly unsound. well as the patriotism of honorable gentlemen, he would says that counsel here would be peculiarly privileged, almost be induced to suspect that they were the offspring and would not be subject to the rules of order. This of self-sufficiency. The substance of the arguments certainly could not be so. If we made an order to admit against granting the application of the petitioner was, counsel, it was implied that such counsel should be subject "We are wise enough of ourselves; we want no instruction to the rules of order prescribed for the members of the from any extrinsic quarter upon any questions, however House. He addresses the Speaker or Chairman of the important, that may come before us; we will depart from Committee of the Whole House, and is, for the time precedents established and adhered to by our prede-being, as much subject to the rules of order as any member here. Counsel have been admitted in parliamentary bodies from time immemorial, and we could not learn that they had ever claimed to be exempt from rules of order, or that they had ever discovered a refractory spirit, unbecoming a member of a legislative assembly. He felt the House called upon, both by principle and precedent, to grant the reasonable request of the petitioner. Mr. ANTHONY said he was present, and had voted that the petitioner should not be permitted counsel: first, that he did not desire it; and, secondly, that he did not need it. He viewed the case in a different light from some other gentlemen. If the gentleman was brought there on a charge of breach of the peace, it would then be proper that he should be heard by counsel. But the present was a different case. They stood in the relation of counsel to the petitioner, and they had taken an oath to that effect. They were also counsel for the sitting member. He was prima facie entitled to his seat, and had taken it. They would give the other gentleman the same privilege on that question, because a certain portion of the people had sent him there to claim his seat. It was the people they were to decide for, because the petitioner was the agent and representative of those peo. ple. It was not a personal matter they had to settle, but a matter of interest to the people of the district the petitioner represented. Gentlemen might as well argue that counsel should be employed in every case coming before Congress, as in the present. Some gentlemen might say they did not understand the laws and the constitution in relation to that case. That question was brought up every day, and therefore they ought to have an expounder of the constitution to tell them what was the law and the constitution. Two-thirds of the speakers in the House were not listened to at all; and if they did have counsel, he asked if he would be listened to? Mr. A. said he was counsel, and so was every gentleman counsel in that case, and they would decide not only for the petitioner, but for the people of his district. The petitioner did not ask any thing for himself, but as the representative of the people. There were many per sons who came there in the same way, and might on the same grounds ask for counsel. They might say that there was no one to take care of their interests; and why not carry out the principle, and allow every one who had claims on the Government to be heard by counsel? It was paying a poor compliment to gentlemen to say that they cannot understand a question of law in North Carolina, without having feed counsel to give them information and advice. He protested against it. He believed the petitioner would not be deprived of what counsel was necessary from gentlemen who were not only schooled in the laws of the United States, but also schooled in the laws of North Carolina. But the principal reason why he protested against it was that they would have a long-winded argument to consume the time of the House, when they were sworn to decide the case from their own information. He thought they might as well allow a gentleman to say, when a matter came before the House in which his constituents were interested, that he was not able to argue the question, and must be permitted to have counsel. He considered it the right and the duty of the House to settle the matter; an ! if they allowed the petitioner counsel, they might as well allow any other gentleman on that floor to ask for counsel to argue the cause of his constituents. Mr. BOULDIN arose to address the House; but The CHAIR announced the arrival of the hour for proceeding to the special order of the day. Mr. DUNLAP rose and said that, by the special orders of the House, no measure could now be brought before the House but by a vote of two thirds. He had heretofore voted against making the special orders of the House, because it was placing a bill in which his immediVOL. XII.-171 [H. OF R. ate constituents were interested in a situation that a majority of the House could not act on it, but it would require of him to get a vote of two thirds of the House, which he did not believe he could do but by courtesy. He had risen this morning to ask of the House the favor to suspend the rules and special orders, to enable him to make a motion that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on bill No. 68, the Tennessee land bill. The bill was one in which his State and immediate constituents were interested; in that not one hour of the time of the House had been occupied in the consideration of this subject since 1829. The House, surely, would now extend the favor to him of taking up this bill: a small portion of the time of this House was due to Tennessee. It not being in order to discuss this motion, he thanked the House for their indulgence in permitting him to make this short statement. He therefore moved that the rules be suspended, to enable him to make his motion. Objection being made, Mr. DUNLAP moved a suspension of the rules, to enable him to submit his motion. Mr. WILLIAMS, of North Carolina, expressed a hope that the rules would not be suspended, The motion was then negatived, without a count. SEMINOLE HOSTILITIES: Mr. R. M. JOHNSON asked the consent of the House to go into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, for the purpose of considering certain amendments of the Senate to a bill from the House, entitled "An act for the payment of volunteers and militia corps in the service of the United States." Mr. J. briefly explained that the amendments in question provided for the appointment of three additional paymasters of the army; a measure proposed in the bill already reported from the Military Committee of the House. Mr. CAMBRELENG asked the gentleman from Kentucky to withdraw the motion for the present, as he wished to make a report from the Committee of Ways and Means, connected with the same subject. Mr. JOHNSON assented, and Mr. C. asked the consent of the House to make the report indicated by him. Mr. BOON wished to amend the motion, so as to enable the standing committees of the House to report generally. The CHAIR said it was not then in order to make that motion. Mr. CAMBRELENG then asked the consent of the House, briefly explaining that the report was an additional appropriation of $500,000 for repressing the hostilities of the Indians in Florida, which was imperiously required, from the fact that the funds already appropriated were exhausted, and drafts were constantly coming in which could not be paid. Mr. BOND objected, and Mr. CAMBRELENG then moved to suspend the rules; which was agreed to without a count; and Mr. CAMBRELENG, from the Committee of Ways and Means, reported a bill making a further appropri ation for the repression of Indian hostilities in Florida; which was read twice and committed. Mr. R. M. JOHNSON then moved that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, for the purpose of considering the amendments from the Senate to the bill providing for the paymont of volunteers and militia corps in the service of the United States, &c., and also the bill just reported. Objection being made, Mr. CAMBRELENG moved a suspension of the rules; which was agreed to, and the motion of Mr. Jousson being also concurred in, The House accordingly went into committee, Mr. MASON, of Virginia, in the chair, on the foregoing bills. The amendments of the Senate to the bill from the House, to provide for the payment of volunteers and militia received into the service of the United States, were first considered. After a brief explanation by Mr. JOHNSON, of Kentucky, the amendments were concurred in, with the exception of that which provided for the appointment of three additional paymasters of the army. Upon adopting the latter amendment, Mr. UNDER. WOOD called for a count; when Mr. JOHNSON observed that, as chairman of the Military Committee, it became his duty to explain the matter in question, by a simple statement of the facts connected with the bill and the amendments. He was reluctant to intrude upon the time of the committee by any remarks of his; but the views of the War Department, of the chief of the pay department, and of the Military Committee, which were in perfect coincidence, ought to be known to every member before giving his vote. The bill (said he) provides that the militia, when called into actual service, shall receive the same pay as the regular army, and that the widows of such as may die in the service shall receive five years' half pay, and that the widows of such as shall perish in the regular service shall also receive five years' half pay. This bill passed this House, and was sent to the Senate. Another bill has been reported by the Military Committee, providing for the appointment of three additional paymasters to the army, but it has not yet been acted upon by the House. The bill which passed the House has been taken up by the Senate, and amended by adding to it the other bill for the appointment of three additional paymasters, and, in that form, returned to the House for its concurrence. The bill, then, as returned from the Senate, presents to us the two bills amalgamated; one of which has already been passed by the House, the other matured by the committee, but not yet acted upon by the House. Though the committee of the House reported two bills to effect the object of the one bill as amended, the Senate did not discover such a want of relation between the two as to render it improper to embrace the whole subject in one bill. The whole is strictly military. It specifies the allowance to be made for military ser vices, and it provides for a sufficient increase of the number of disbursing officers to carry this, together with the pre-existing laws, into effect. There is in it nothing of that complexity calculated to produce confusion; nothing novel or anomalous. The object of a law is lost, without the means of carrying it into effect; and the paymaster general, knowing from practical demonstration the immediate necessity of the measure, requested the amendment to be made by the Senate. The committee of the Senate gave to the subject the same investigation which the committee of the House had done, and arrived at the same conclusion. They incorporated, as an amendment, the same bill, verbatim, which had been reported by the Military Committee to the House. The Senate adopted the amendment, and ask the concurrence of the House. Their object appears to have been, not to counteract the views of the House, but to further them by so accelerating the business as to give efficacy to the measure at the moment when our bleeding country feels its necessity. It is objected by gentlemen that we have already four. teen paymasters; a number quite sufficient for the payment of an army of but six or seven thousand men. The argument seems specious; and it is admitted that half the number would be amply sufficient for a much larger army, if they were consolidated at one, two, or three stations. But the labor imposed on the paymasters [MARCH 10, 1836. The is not proportioned to the number of troops, as the gentleman would seem to intimate. It is proportioned to the scattered situation and the remoteness from each other of the stations occupied by the troops. It requires as much time and labor for a paymaster to perform a journey of five hundred miles to pay three companies at three different stations, as it would to pay three regiments, of a thousand men each, at cne station. present number of paymasters was fixed in 1821, when the number of military stations was much less than they are at this time; and even then, some of our troops, occupying distant posts, were kept out of their pay for more than six months together, and, in some instances, reduced to a state of actual suffering, in time of peace, for want of proper facilities to give them their pay according to law. Our military stations are now greatly extended in their distance, and multiplied in their number. They are spread along our maritime frontier, from Eastport, in Maine, to Florida and New Orleans, in the South; and upon our western frontier, from the Red river, along the western border of Arkansas, Missouri, and on the Upper Mississippi, to Green Bay and Mackinac, in the North, embracing the whole circumference of the United States, and forming a circuit of ten thousand miles. The whole of this circuit must be traversed once every three months by paymasters, or the troops cannot receive their com pensation according to the terms of the law under which they enter the service. It is required of each paymaster to prepare pay-rolls, visit every station within his dis trict, pay each person his due, and make his return, properly authenticated, to the paymaster general, for adjudication, once in every three months. The labor has been found to be physically impracticable. Officers and privates in Florida, the seat of recent slaughter, have been deprived of their pay for more than six months together; and it has been stated that the volunteers who acted so gallant a part in the Black Hawk war did not, in many instances, receive their pay for more than a year after their services terminated. In these cases, the fault is not ascribable to the disbursing officers nor to the Department, but to the want of a sufficient number of paymasters to perform the service. Is this the treatment which our heroic army merits from the nation which it defends? Gentlemen now call for proof of the correctness of the statement. They desire such evidence as shall satisfy them that the present number is inadequate to the ser vice. It is not possible, sir, to subject this to the rules of mathematical demonstration, because it is not a proposition of that nature. But we have sufficient evidence to satisfy the most incredulous mind, if credit is due to the asseverations of disinterested men of the highest honor and trust. The measure is recommended by the President, who is not utterly ignorant of what is necessary to perfect our military establishment. It is recommended by the Secretary of War, who is not unacquainted with the wants of his Department. It is earnestly recommended by General Towson, the paymaster general, who alleges the impossibility of punctu ality in paying the army promptly with the present number of paymasters; and it is long experience which has demonstrated to him the truth of the proposition. His veracity is unimpeached and unimpeachable. His char. acter, both as a man and as an officer, will stand every scrutiny. He has no end to answer in this request, but his country's good; and it any other temptation could present itself, no person would suspect him capable of yielding to it. With these authorities, I ask no farther evidence of the necessity of the measure proposed in the amendment. Without it the Government cannot fulfil its stipulations to the army. The money is provided; the appropriation is made; the service is performed; but, for want of a sufficient number of paymasters, the heroic band is defrauded of its timely dues; the officers and sol diers are reduced to suffering, and the Treasury is not benefited one cent by the delay. And is this true economy? No, sir; it is prodigality. Economy gives sufficient aid to effect the entire object of appropriations. The want of these means is alike destructive to public and private credit, and must end in disasters which years of true economy cannot repair. The tendency of any measure which has an unjust bearing upon any class of citizens, whatever may be its present prospect, will always end in misfortune. But if any one class merits promptness in meting to them their stipend, it is the army. Their whole allow. ance is but a scanty competence. They serve not their country for money. They form a bulwark of defence around us, and glory is their reward. Of this they have surrounded themselves with a radiance as lasting as the sunbeams, which the eye of envy can never penetrate; we cannot deprive them of it. The complaint of officers occasionally visiting the seat of Government, whether on duty or on furlough, cannot eclipse their glory, nor pluck one laurel from their brows. Their deeds of chivalry during the late war have covered them with immortal honors; and the character of those who compose this little army, for intelligence and honor, is unsurpassed by any equal number in creation. Why, then, withhold from them their stipulated dues, after they become payable by contract, for the trifling consideration of furnishing a sufficient number of disbursing officers to perform this service? This measure is but a branch of the system of defence which the safety of our whole interior frontier imperiously demands. The States bordering upon the savages are warranted in the expectation of protection from the tomahawk and scalping-knife. The want of this system has already stained the waters of the Upper Mississippi, and deluged the Illinois with the blood of innocence; and Florida is now bleeding under the hand of savage barbarity; when a small proportion of the moneys which these two wars will have cost, expended in perfecting the system of which this measure is an important branch, would have prevented the catastrophe. The same scenes will be reacted in Arkansas, in Missouri, in our Northwestern Territory, unless the whole system of protection shall be adopted. The destruction of many valuable lives, and the waste of many millions of dollars, will be the certain result; though the annual appropriation of a few hundred thousand dollars, applied in proper time, may prevent the disasters. [H. OF R. cation bills, since we have so often been told the public service is suffering for the want of money to be appropriated by those bills, and to take up a bill to increase the number of paymasters! Mr. D. said the House had voted for the caption of the bill, without any knowledge of what amendments had been offered by the other branch of the Legislature. The House believed they were voting to take up a bill for the payment of volunteer and militia corps in the service of the United States." The bill had passed this House without any opposition. There was not a member that would for one moment withhold from that gallant band of soldiers now engaged in the service of the United States in Florida in putting an end to the cruel and savage war of the Seminole Indians, any thing to which they are entitled. Mr. D. said, in what situation are we who are opposed to the increase of paymasters? We are liable to be charged of opposing the bill appropriating money to pay the gallant sons of the South, who did not wait, when their country needed their services, to be draughted; but, sir, the only draught was, who should stay at home-all, yes, all were ready, willing, and anxious, to go and fight the battles of their country. He, for one, was unwilling to be placed in such a situation. If this manner of legislation is adopted, of putting measures of a different character in the same bill, what will be our situation? Sir, take for example the case now before the House. Suppose a majority of this House shall be opposed to increase the number of paymasters, and non-concur in the Senate's amendment, and the Senate should refuse to recede from their amendment: the House would be compelled either to lose the bill (as the fortification bill was lost last session) or agree to increase the number of paymasters. Mr. D. said he was utterly opposed to such a practice of legislation. It was unparliamentary, and the House should unanimously refuse to adopt such a principle. Mr. D. said, as to the amendment, he desired that its merits might be considered when the bill of this House on that subject came up, and also the bills to increase the engineer topographical corps. It would seem strange to his constituents, that fourteen men were not sufficient to pay quarterly six thousand men what the Government owed them. It was certainly strange to him, if they could not each pay less than five hundred men, although they were stationed over a large tract of country. The facilities of travelling were now very great, much more so than in 1821, when fourteen paymasters were considered sufficient. Mr. CAMBRELENG hoped the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. JOHNSON] would not press this amendment. He concurred entirely in the remarks of the gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. DUNLAP,] that as this proposition had been reported to the House by the Military Committee, in a distinct form, it should not have been attached to the present bill, which should be immediately passed. He was therefore opposed to the amendment. Mr. DUNLAP said the House must now see the situation in which it was placed by the amendment of the Senate to this appropriation bill. He would venture to assert that there was not half a dozen members who knew what they were voting for, when they voted to suspend the rules of the House and postpone the special orders of the day, to take up this bill. He was warranted in this assertion from the vote just taken on the motion made by himself, to take up the Tennessee land bill. He had not complained of the House for that vote; he knew well the reason that induced gentlemen to give the votes they did. The special orders contain two bills that the necessity of the Government required the action of this House upon immediately. As to the other bills included in the special order, there was not that necessity for immediate action. Although the House refused to suspend the rules to take up the bill in which his State and constituents were so much interested, we find ourselves voting for a suspension of the rules to take up a bill to increase the number of paymasters. Sir, would any member on this floor have given such a vote, if he had Mr. R. M. JOHNSON could see no reason for disagreeknown for what he was voting? How inconsistent must ing to this amendment. He adverted to the fact that the Le have been, to vote to postpone the navy and fortifi-subject of the present amendment had been urged by Mr. WARD said the House was already in possession of all the facts necessary to arrive at a decision on the amendment. He referred to the circumstance, that the present number of paymasters had been found insufficient to pay off the troops promptly, and that frequent delays on that account had taken place, and the officers and troops had gone without their pay for months together. In case of the sickness or death of a paymaster, the duties required of him could not be discharged by any other person, and a vacancy could only be filled by the President, with the consent of the Senate. He was satisfied that the amendment was not only proper, but absolutely necessary, and he therefore hoped it would be concurred in. the Department at a former session, as absolutely neces sary, and that it had been favorably considered by the Committee on Military Affairs. It had, however, fallen among the unfinished business, and having, by chance or good luck, come up in the shape of an amendment by the Senate to a bill from the House, he could see no reason for setting it aside. The amendment was a literal copy of the bill reported in the House at the last and the present sessions. He was no more interested in the proposition than other gentlemen. He hoped the report of the Military Committee in relation to it would be read; and if a majority of the committee should be in favor of nonconcurring in the amendment, he would cheerfully acquiesce. The report having been read, [MARCH 10, 1836. was not the proper place or occasion to provide for these permanent officers. It was entailing an expense of nearly $6,000 a year upon the country, $1,934 66 being the pay for each of those officers. If he were as convinced of the necessity of the additional paymasters as the gentleman from Kentucky himself, he should vote against their being provided for in the present bill, though he might be in favor of a distinct proposition. If the House should, however, concur in the Senate's amendment, he hoped at least the provision of the gentleman from Tennessee would be adopted. Mr. MANN said that the honorable chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs [Mr. JOHNSON] had well remarked that this was not a new proposition in the House. True, sir, (said Mr. M.,) to many of us it is an Mr. WILLIAMS of North Carolina, remarked that he old acquaintance here. The honorable member, who had originally two objections to this amendment, the first had so long served the country, had not neglected to of which was removed in some degree, if not entirely, by report a bill upon the subject for the time he (Mr. M.) the reading of the report; the second, however, remained, had served here. The head of the bureau of the pay and that was the mingling up of different subjects in the department had not, Mr. M. believed, neglected his same bill. He thought the amendment should be consid-duty in soliciting its passage; and we are now informed ered in a separate bill, and he hoped it would not be con- that he is a high and honorable man. Be it so, Mr. curred in by the committee. Chairman. Does this furnish a good reason for the passage of this bill to create these three new offices in addition to the present list of the army-I will not say sinecures? The heads of the military bureaux stationed at Washington were not backward in recommending additional force to their respective corps; and the kindness of heart for which the honorable chairman of the committee is so distinguished leads him to yield to their solicitations sometimes, Mr. M. feared, without that full consideration and investigation which the questions demand. The question was then taken on the amendment, and there appeared: Ayes 50, noes 61: no quorum voting. Mr. ADAMS moved that the committee rise and report that fact to the House; which was negatived. Tellers were then appointed, and the amendment was concurred in: Ayes 72, noes 59. Mr. CAVE JOHNSON said it appeared that this Florida war was to be made a pretext for the appointment of three additional permanent paymasters. Mr. JOHNSON, of Kentucky, rose to explain. It was not on account of the war in Florida that this amendment had been made. For the last two years the paymaster general had urged upon Congress the absolute necessity for an increase in the number of paymasters. The Florida war was an additional reason for urging the speedy action of the House on the subject. It had not, he repeated, originated the proposition. If it Mr. C. JOHNSON resumed. He thought fourteen paymasters (the present number) amply sufficient to pay an army of six or seven thousand troops. should be determined to increase the number, they would have an army of paymasters after a while. As the Seminole war would enhance the duties of those officers for a limited time, he would move to amend the amendment by providing that the three additional paymasters should hold their offices for one year, and no longer. Mr. R. M. JOHNSON was opposed to the amendment last proposed, and urged at some length the propriety and necessity of increasing permanently the number of paymasters of the army. The paymaster general, a distinguished and honorable officer, had informed them that he could not, with the present force, pay off the troops promptly and punctually. He had called for this increase, and he (Mr. J.) felt bound to take the word of the paymaster general, that it was required by the public service. He trusted, therefore, that the amendment of the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. C. JOHNSON] would not prevail. Mr. SMITH said the amendment of the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. C. JOHNSON] was well worthy of consideration; for, in a bill for an appropriation of a temporary character, the Senate had appended a perma nent proposition, without, at the same time, furnishing a single fact of its propriety or necessity. He therefore thought at least the limit ought to be somewhat commensurate with the occasion giving rise to it. If it was a proposition to add those three paymasters for a short period, or to a period approximating the time of the present emergency of the appropriation, objections to it, strong as they then would be, might be waived; but this The honorable gentleman had reported bills to increase the corps of military and civil engineers, the corps of topographical engineers, and, perhaps, as is usual in such bills, "to regulate" (which, in nautical and military language, I find, means to increase) their pay, and to provide clerks and servants to do the business. These bills are also introduced with the pressing recommendation of those distinguished military heads of the respective bureaux over which they preside, appendant to the Department of War; and we shall be told that they are also "honorable men," and therefore we should pass their bills; that the topography and internal improvements of the country cannot move onward unless places are provided for those supernumerary" promising youths" who are annually ingrafted upon the stock of the military aristocracy of the country by the aid of the Military Academy at West Point. These young gentlemen, "more favored of Heaven than the rest of their kind," must be provided for at the public crib, through the instrumentality of these overshadowing bureaux, and sent beyond the mountains to teach the farmers and the hardy yeomanry there how to make roads scientifically. Yes, sir, and how to vote wisely and properly. It is said by some gentlemen that they have not neglected this latter branch of their business so much as to subject them to the censures of their superiors; but that the road-makers have sometimes manifested such a disposition to mutiny, that those "booted and spurred" teachers of scientific road-making have (to use a western phrase) "been found missing." Now, sir, (said Mr. M.,) are we, under the auspicious influence of the honorable chairman and the honorable generals stationed in the military bureaux appurtenant to the Department of War, instead of the posts on the frontier, to go on increasing the officers of the army and regulating (increasing) their pay and allowances? Is it not time we should hesitate and investigate more thoroughly the real and actual necessities of these demands?. For one, Mr. Chairman, I must decline going any farther until I have more data to show me that the interests |