The gentleman from New York [Mr. CAMBRELENG] said afterwards, and when giving his reasons for not presenting the report from the committee of conference, "that he regretted the loss of the whole fortification bill; but let the responsibility fall where it ought-on the Senate of the United States." This I find in the Globe of the 5th of March.

No gentleman of this House could have heard the remarks which I have quoted, without perceiving that there was a decided and strong determination on the part of many members, and, among others, the gentleman from New York, [Mr. CAMBRELENG,] to suffer the whole bill to be lost, with a view to attach odium to the Senate. It is worthy of particular notice, as illustrative of the peculiar character of the party now in power, that those who were most determined to defeat the whole fortification bill did not see any objection to the loss of it, (though, according to their own declaration at the time, the country would thereby be left defenceless,) provided the Senate could be held responsible. The country was but a secondary consideration; the interest of the party had superior obligations. Although the course insisted upon by the chairman of the committee had been so far successful, and the bill with the amendments was already considered by the House as lost, it was evident that some uneasiness was felt at this result. A gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. HUBBARD] made two efforts, before he was successful in getting the floor, to move for a committee of conference; and, notwithstanding the obstinacy with which a large majority had but a few moments before voted to adhere to their amendment, the motion for a conference was carried without a division. The Chair appointed the gentleman from New York, [Mr. CAMBRELENG,] the gentleman from New Hampshire who moved for the conference, and a gentleman from Alabama, [Mr. LEWIS,] of the committee of conference. I distinctly remember that there was some delay on the part of the committee in leaving the House, and some symptoms of hesitation and faltering in the looks and manner of that member of the committee who was most relied upon to bring about a favorable result! It is within my personal knowledge that that gentleman was addressed by a member, and told that he had taken a step which was honest and patriotic, though contrary to the wishes and policy of a portion of the House; that it only required courage and energy to carry his object; and that no time was to be lost. It was about this time that it was rumored in the House (or, at all events, I had about this time been informed) that an honorable Senator from Tennessee had voted against the amendment of the House to the fortification bill. This, of course, did not diminish the interest I had before felt upon the subject; yet I have no distinct impression of the particular bill or question upon which the House was engaged at the time the committee returned, or at what hour of the night.

[Mr. CAMBRELENG explained, and said that the committee had left the House only after himself and another member of the committee had voted on the Cumberland road bill. He also expressed some surprise that the gentleman from Tennessee should not know that the committee had to wait in the House until a message could be sent to the Senate, and an answer returned, before they could know whether the Senate would agree to a conference. He also said that the Cumberland road bill was taken up immediately after the committee on the part of the House was appointed, or so soon afterwards that the committee could not have acted before that bill was taken up.]

Mr. BELL resumed. As I have not much confidence in the accuracy of my own memory upon these questions of time, and the order of events, that night, so am I inVOL. XII.-179

[H. OF R

clined to distrust the memory of others. There was a good deal of business transacted after the appointment of the committee, and before the road bill was acted upon; besides, that bill had to be ordered to a third reading, and then actually read through, before it was put upon its passage; and the committee, in waiting to vote upon that bill, if such was the fact, were guilty of negligence, when so important a measure as the fortification bill de pended so much upon despatch. It is not necessary, either, that the committee should have waited for an answer from the Senate; nor, upon such occasions, is that the usual course. The committee, if it had done its whole duty, would have followed the message of the House to the Senate chamber, and have been ready to act, instantly, with any committee which might be appointed by that body. But, sir, I regard these points as of very little importance to the principal inquiry. If the committee had returned to the House when the yeas and nays were being taken on the road bill, it would have been too late, in point of time, to obviate the scruples of those who supposed that the House could not act after the hour of twelve. I cannot say that I was right in my impression, but I am certain that I supposed that hour had arrived before the road bill passed the House. A gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. Gilmer,] who was, in every respect, a most exact, sincere, and conscientious man, in the dis charge of his duties as a member of this House, rose in his place, when his name was called to vote upon that bill, and declared that he regarded the constitutional term of that Congress as having expired, and he could not, conscientiously, vote upon any question; and he did not vote. There was no question made as to the true time; and the statement of the gentleman from Georgia was acquiesced in so far that no member rose to correct his statement. I can only say further upon this point, that when the bill was signed by the Speaker, it was done under a confident belief that the hour of twelve had passed; and, when the President approved it, it must have been after that hour. Whether, therefore, the committee retired from the House, or returned to it, when the question was being taken upon the road bill, is wholly immaterial, in every view of the subject. We know that the committee of conference of both Houses agreed to amend the fortification bill by adding $800,000 for the public defences, but that the report was not acted upon in the House, because of the alleged want of a quorum; and for the further reason alleged, that the term of Congress expired at the hour of twelve on the night of the 3d of March, 1835, and that the report was not presented to the House until after that hour. Now, sir, the inquiry is, how it happened that the House found itself without a quorum, at the close of its term, when so many important subjects remained to be acted upon; and who were they that withdrew at such a moment, and what were their motives? All these points I undertake to explain and settle, from circumstances so strong as to satisfy every impartial inquirer. It is fortunate that we have record proof upon this subject; and it is upon such I mainly rely in making good my engagement.

It appears from the journals of that night that one hundred and seventy-four members voted upon the passage of the Cumberland road bill; of that number, eightythree were, and are now, the political friends and supporters of the Vice President, Mr. Van Buren, for the succession to the presidency. You, sir, [Mr. Hamer, of Ohio,] may know that there were strong reasons for the passage of that bill, besides the ordinary interest which the people of the States north of the Ohio had in the road itself; and it was not safe to be too inquisitive as to the hour of the night, or as to the precise point of time, when the constitutional powers of the House ceased. That bill was to be passed at all hazards. But a few minutes had elapsed, after the passage of the road

bill, when a motion was made to take up the question of Mr. Letcher's pay; and, after some little debate, the previous question was moved; and in ascertaining whether there was a second to the motion, there appeared, on a count, to be one hundred and thirty-five members present; on taking the main question, immediately afterwards, by yeas and nays, only one hundred and thirteen members answered; and so the House appeared to be without a quorum; one hundred and twenty-one members being necessary for that purpose. It thus appears that, in the very short space of time between the vote upon the road bill and the question of Mr. Letcher's pay, sixty-one members had retired from the House, or refused to vote; and twenty-two of the members present, when the previous question was moved on the question of Letcher's pay, absented themselves immediately, or declined voting on the main question, which was put the next moment. On the question of Letcher's pay, only thirty-one members of the party voted; less than the number of the same party which had voted just before upon the road bill, by fifty-two; and so it appears that of the sixty-one members who voted on the road bill, and declined voting on the question of Letcher's pay, fifty-two were members of the dominant party, leaving only nine of the opposition to share the responsibility of depriving the House of a quorum at that important moment. These details I know are tedious and uninteresting, but they are important to the cause of truth, and equally so to the cause of justice between the respective political parties in the country. I cannot be satisfied until I show, by names, who they were--I mean of what party, and what their probable motives-that were the real authors of the miscarriage of the fortification bill. The following gentlemen, members of the last Congress, and all members of the party, voted on the Cumberland road bill, who, from scruples of conscience, or some other reason, retired, or declined to vote upon any other question during the night: Samuel Beardsley, Rowland Day, Joel Turrill, R. H. Gillet, N. Halsey, S. G. Hathaway, N. Johnson, C. McVean, Job Pierson, and William Taylor, of New York; John Galbraith, J. B. Sutherland, and A. Beaumont, of Pennsylvania; Jeremiah McLene, R. Mitchell, W. Patterson, and T. Webster, of Ohio; J. M. Harper, B. M. Bean, and H. Hubbard, of New Hampshire; William Schley, of Georgia; G. P. Osgood, of Massachusetts; A. G. Hawes, of Kentucky; H. Connor, of North Carolina; Ratliff Boon and John Carr, of Indiana; Gorham Parks, of Maine; and J. M. H. Beale, of Virginia.

But I

I give the names, not from any personal disrespect, but that all who know the gentlemen may draw their own conclusions; as all I can vouch for in regard to them is, that, as party men, they are, without exception, good and true; as faithful a band as ever rallied under party chief; but, sir, they must be allowed to be honest, and have scruples of conscience, like other men. have another list, which will place this point beyond dispute. The following gentlemen, twenty-two in number, and all of the true faith, who did not vote on the question of Letcher's pay, reappeared afterwards, and actually voted upon one, and much the largest number of them on two motions to adjourn, which were decided upon the yeas and nays, long after the vote upon LetchPhilemon Dickerson, M. T. Hawkins, Benjamin Jones, E. Kavanagh, J. K. Polk, I. B. Van Houten, Joseph B. Anthony, John Chaney, John Cramer, D. Kilgore, T. Lee, E. Lucas, C. Lyon, M. Mason, jr, James Parker, F. O. J. Smith, Jesse Speight, L. Jarvis, W. L. May, W. N. Shinn, J. J. McKay, and E. Howell. These twenty-two members, added to the one hundred and thirteen who voted upon the question of Letcher's pay, make the whole number one hundred and thirtyfive, which must have been present, either in the House

er's case:

[MARCH 16, 1836.

or within call, at the time the question was taken upon the proposition to pay Letcher, besides those who were present, but declined voting upon any question at all after the road bill passed. Here, then, sir, is proof positive and certain that there was a quorum present at the very point of time when it is affirmed by those who wish to avoid responsibility, and throw the odium of the loss of the fortification bill upon others, that there was not one in the House. It is due to those gentlemen whose names I have taken the liberty to mention to say that they may have acted from very proper motives, and very different from those which I have left to be inferred from the manner in which I have stated the argument. In order to show the view which the gentleman from New York [Mr. CAMBRELENG] took of this question, and the distinct ground upon which he placed his own justification, I will read an extract from a letter printed in the Intelligencer of the 9th of March, with his signa.

ture.

[Mr. BELL was reading that part of Mr. CAMBRELENG'S letter in which he stated that the committee of conference left the House immediately after it was appointed, and in which he referred to the Cumberland road bill as having been taken up and acted upon in the absence of the committee, when Mr. CAMBRELENG explained, and asked the gentleman from Tennessee if he had not heard his statement upon this point on a former day? He also referred to the journal, to show that a statement there appeared, made by him on the night of the 3d of March, in which it was alleged that the vote was decided on the question of Letcher's pay when the committee returned to the House, and he was surprised that the gentleman from Tennessee should not know the fact; and if there was any thing wrong in the journal, the Speaker, whose duty it was to see it made up properly, was responsible.]

Mr. BELL resumed. I heard the gentleman's statement on a former day. He then stated that the committee did not retire until he and another member of the committee voted on the road bill; but I still do not regard the statement as decisive of the fact, for the gentleman's own recollection was different a few days after the adjournment. And as to the responsibility to which the gentleman thinks the Speaker ought to be held, I am willing to bear all proper responsibility; but no man who was present can suppose it possible that the Speaker could remember the order of all that was said and done on that most harassing night. As to the statement which appears by the journals to have been made by the gentleman in relation to the time when the committee returned to the House, it proves nothing more than the gentleman's own verbal statement could now do; for it was a matter that did not belong to the journals, and ought not to have been there. But I state again, that I do not regard the question of the time when the committee returned to the House as at all material; I was proceeding to read the letter of the gentleman more with a view to another and distinct point, than to show how little reliance was to be placed upon the recollections of any one as to the precise time at which any particular event transpired. The gentleman further states in his letter, after affirming that the committee returned to the House while the yeas and nays were being called upon Letcher's case, that "a quorum on the question of Letcher's pay not having voted, the Chair could receive no report from any committee." This is the material statement to which I wish to call the attention of the committee. It is true the gentleman did state in his place, on that night, that there was no quorum present, and he gave that as a reason why he had not presented the report of the committee; but, in doing so, he acted gratuitously. In taking notice that no quorum was present, even if it were the fact, he assumed a duty and responsibility wholly unusual and unprecedented in the practice of this House, unless the

danger of war, the loss of that bill was a matter of no serious consequence to the country; and all that has been said to the coutrary has been mere trifling. But if there was really any probable reason to apprehend war at the close of the last session of Congress, then it was just such an emergency as that all constitutional doubts about the power of the House to pass the bill after twelve o'clock at night ought, upon principle as well as the authority of precedent, to have been solved in favor of the power. It is strange that a whole party, which claims exclusive patriotism, should have been paralyzed by doubts at such a crisis. What! when the country was supposed to be upon the eve of a war with a powerful nation-its military defences incomplete, unarmed, and decayed-is it at such a crisis that scruples and doubts about constitutional power to a mere question of hours -not of days, but of hours-are suffered to affect measures essential to the honor, safety, and perhaps the very existence of the Government? It was not so with General Jackson when the public enemy were at the gates, and threatened the safety of a single city of the Union! But what strikes me as most extraordinary is, that the President himself should have had scruples of conscience about the power of Congress to pass laws after twelve o'clock on the 3d of March, 1835; and that he should have resolved to sign no bill that should pass the House after that hour. Sir, if the President did make that declaration, it is conclusive evidence that he regarded the country as in no danger of war. He surely would not have been so regardless of the interests of the country as to desire the loss of the fortification bill for any party advantage which might be expected from it, in carrying on the war against the Senate and Judge White, when the country itself was exposed to the danger of a foreign war. Sir, the President and his advisers had no fears of a war with France at the close of the last session of Congress, nor at any other time. This is manifest from their own conduct. If it had been supposed, at the close of the last session of Congress, that a war with France was a probable event, it was the sworn and sacred duty of the President, under the constitution, to have advised Congress of his apprehensions, and to have recommended immediate measures for the defence of the country. He should have communicated his fears, freely and fully, upon this subject, to Congress; for it is the executive department of Government which has charge of, and is always presumed to be better informed upon such questions than Congress. The communication should have been made to Congress, and not to individual members. Again, sir: it was equally the duty of the President, under the constitution, to have convoked the new Congress at the earliest day possible after the last adjourn ment, if he really anticipated war with France. If any new cause of war, or any additional reason to apprehend a war with France, was conceived to exist, in the course of the French Chambers in requiring an apology which the President could not give consistently with the honor of the country, Congress ought to have been called immediately on the receipt of the intelligence. It would have been in the power of the President, at any time during the summer and fall of that year, to have repaired the mischief of the loss of the three million appropriation, by calling Congress together, and laying before them the state of the country, and recommending proper measures to meet the crisis. His not having done so is conclusive with me that there was no expectation of war; and the hue and cry raised about the loss of the three million appropriation and fortification bill must be regarded as one of the great number of false pretences and impostures which have been invented by the party for political effect and popular excitement.

There is another subject, Mr. Chairman, which I feel bound to avail myself of, on this occasion, to notice

[MARCH 16, 1836.

more particularly than I have yet done; it is another one of that series of pretences and impostures which I have so often alluded to: I refer now to the alleged mischief and danger of terminating an election of President by this House. No subject has been more artfully handled, and portrayed in more alarming colors in the South and Southwest, during the last fall and summer, by the partisans and adherents of the Vice President, than this one; none, sir, has produced a more decided effect upon the public mind. It is well known that in those sections of the Union, especially, an election by the House of Representatives was made particularly odious by the representations and denunciations of the election by the House in 1825. It was one of the standing themes of every political declaimer during the last year. The evils of such a catastrophe as another election by the House have been a subject of constant regret and lamentation in the columns of every leading journal in the interest of Mr. Van Buren. I should not be far wrong if I were to say that two thirds of all the honest and sober-minded planters and farmers in the whole South and Southwest, who are disposed to support the nomination of the Baltimore convention, would assign as the reason of their course, if they were asked, their horror of an election by the House of Representatives, and their fears that, by supporting any other candidate, they will only contribute to bring about this result. Knowing the extent of this feeling, the partisans of Mr. Van Buren have in many districts rested his cause entirely upon this point. A French war was described as an infinitely less evil than an election by the House of Representatives. It has been, and is now, asserted by the zealous and interested advocates of the Vice President throughout the country, that an election by the House would be carried by intrigue, bribery, and corruption, and that the voice of the people will be unheeded in the contest. The Government journal printed in this city (the Globe) has of late uniformly represented an election by the House of Representatives as the greatest calamity which could befall the country. I propose now to unveil the course of the party in power upon this subject, and to expose their artifices and insincerity.

It is very well known to those who look beyond the surface, who pay only a due regard to professions, and examine the real motives of human action, as they are exhibited in the course of the present self-styled republican party, that they advocate the propriety and necessity of adhering to the practice of nominating a President and Vice President by caucuses or conventions, not for the purpose of preventing an election by the House of Representatives, but upon the ground that, as they allege, in no other way can a party be kept together, or the power and patronage of the Government be secured to their own members or followers. This is the true motive, and this the true secret, of the extraordinary efforts and influences which have been made and brought to bear on the people of late, in order to give popularity and permanence to the practice of such nominations. To avoid the evils of an election by the House, is the professed object of the party. That has been the great political bugbear which has been held up and paraded through the country, to frighten the people into an acquiescence in the nomination of such a body as the late Baltimore convention. The truth is, that without the benefit of the terrors created by the frightful image of an election by the House, which has been so constantly kept before the eyes of the people, the nomination of the Baltimore convention would have found no countenance. And this, sir, is the solution of the mystery; here lies the secret of the continued and marked neglect with which the repeated recommendation of the President, in relation to such an amendment of the constitution as would hereafter prevent an election of President and Vice President by the House, and secure it to the people, has

been treated by the party. The history of this proposition is remarkable, and highly instructive, as well as curi

ous.

It cannot be forgotten that, from 1825 until the commencement of the present administration, this proposition was a favorite policy of the party which brought General Jackson into power. The whole subject was, during that period, ably and fully discussed, both in Congress and in the public journals. When General Jackson was elected by the people, no one doubted but that one of the first acts which would distinguish the action of Congress would be, to recommend such an amendment to the States, for their adoption. General Jackson, in his first message, urged the subject upon the attention of Congress in the strongest and most persuasive language. In his second, and in each succeeding annual message, he has done the same thing. Regarding the discussion of the subject as having commenced in 1825, it is now upwards of ten years since it has been before the country in the most imposing formin the annual messages of the President. The arguments and language of the message upon this subject are worthy of particular notice, and I must ask leave to refer to them. [Here Mr. BELL read several passages from the message of the President upon this subject, all of which went to show how important it was, in the opinion of the President, that such an amendment of the constitution should be made.] Well, sir, what has been the result-the effect of these repeated and urgent recommendations? In the early part of the administration, many earnest and well-meant efforts were made to get this House to take up and act upon this subject. Propositions in a variety of shapes were presented; and it has been a part of the regular forms of the House, at the beginning of every session, to appoint a select committee upon this subject; but, sir, the truth cannot be disguised or disputed, that those efforts were the efforts of individuals only; that the regular annual appointment of special committees has been but a mere form; and at no time could the party be rallied in favor of the proposition. There was always somewhere, and from some motive, a power and an influence which thwarted the action of the House upon this question.

Soon after the opening of the last session of Congress, this subject began to excite increased interest, and certainly demanded prompt attention from those who seriously and honestly believed an election by the House of Representatives ought to be avoided. It was then, sir, that it became manifest that the Jackson party would be divided upon the subject of his successor; and an honorable Senator from Tennessee was brought to the notice of the country as a candidate for the presidency, and supported under such circumstances and upon principles which forbade the hope that his friends would surrender his pretensions to the man who it was foreseen would be the favorite of the contemplated Baltimore convention. This was a conjuncture to test the principles of the party upon this subject. The danger of a division in the ranks of the party in power was manifest. That an election by the House would be a result of this state of things could not certainly be foreseen; but all must have seen that such a result might take place. As early as the 10th of December, 1834, a select committee was appointed to consider of and report upon this subject. Special care was taken to appoint a clear majority upon the committee who were known to have avowed themselves favorable to an amendment of the constitution which would exclude the election from the House. The following gentlemen composed the committee: Messrs. Gilmer, Archer, Binney, Beardsley, Gorham, Johnson of Kentucky, Speight, Hubbard, and Carr. Five of these gentlemen are the known supporters of Gen. eral Jackson, and of Mr. Van Buren as his successor;

[H. OF R.

and all were understood, when the committee was appointed, to be in favor of the recommendation of the President which it was their exclusive and special duty to consider and report upon. The chairman of the committee, (Mr. Gilmer, of Georgia,) though not a supporter of the administration, was known to be a gentleman of great sincerity, talents, and energy; and he was also known to be a zealous advocate of the proposition submitted to the committee. I have a personal knowledge that unusual efforts were made by the chairman of the committee, and by various other individuals, to prevail upon the committee to agree upon some report at an early day of the session, that it might be before the House and acted upon before the close of the session. The friends of Judge White, especially, fearing the use which would be made against him of the argument that, by dividing the party, the election might be brought into the House, exerted themselves in every fair and honorable way to procure a decision upon the question by Congress. Several of the members of this committee, who had always avowed themselves in favor of the measure, were privately appealed to; but all was vain. The answer was, they could not agree upon the details of the measure-no two, it was said, could agree. Now, sir, every member of the least experience in legislation knows that, upon any important question whatever, involving details, two men can rarely be found to agree upon all of them. It is notorious that no committee of this House would ever report upon any subject of importance, if a majority of its members were expected to unite upon all the details of it. All that can be expected in such cases is, that a majority shall agree upon the principle of the report. The House is always expected to alter the details, according to the views of the majority. It was no adequate excuse to say they could not agree upon details. I will not be so unjust as to say that all the members of the committee who had before that time professed a desire to see the constitution amended in this respect wilfully combined to prevent any action upon the subject last session. Of a committee of nine members, and six only of them being friendly to the principle of a measure, any two of the six were able to defeat any action upon the subject. A report from the committee, I feel warranted, from the circumstances, in asserting, was defeated by the management of some portion of the members of it who were, at the same time, avowed advocates of the expediency of such an amendment of the constitution.

The farther history of this question is this: Mr. Gilmer, the chairman of the committee, failing in all his efforts to get the committee to make a report in any shape, came into the House on the 31st of January, and asked that the committee might be discharged from the further consideration of the subject, on the ground that they could come to no agreement thereupon; and, on the same day, he was permitted to lay a resolution, containing a proposition for an amendment of the constitution in relation to the election of President and Vice President, upon the table. I well remember that, at first, one of the prominent members of the committee, and who was also a prominent member of the dominant party, refused to give his consent that Mr. Gilmer should even lay his resolution upon the table; but he became ashamed of his conduct, and withdrew his opposi tion. Thus the subject was before the House; and it was at any time in the power of the majority to take it up and decide upon it. On the 13th of February, Mr. Gilmer, finding that it would not do to postpone the subject any longer, without losing sight of it altogether during the session, moved to suspend the rules of the House, in order to proceed to the consideration of his resolution. Against this motion there were only fifty-six votes; and, of these, thirty-seven were the known supporters of Mr. Van Buren for the presidency, or, in other words, of a