Daily National Intelligencer

CONGRESSIONAL PROCEEDINGS.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

ON ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE SUPPORT OF THE NAVY FOR 1819.

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 30.

The House being in committee of the whole on several bills, one of which was a bill making additional appropriations for the support of the Navy for the year 1819—

Mr. Smith, of Maryland, (chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means,) explained the reason which rendered it necessary to provide, at this time, for certain expenditures which had not been foreseen at the last session. He called for the reading of the letter of the Secretary of the Navy on the subject, which was read by the Clerk of the House.

Mr. Storrs, of New-York, said that he had observed, in the letter of the Secretary, an allusion to a warrant of transfer, drawn by the President, in August, which he also requested the Clerk to read from the documents. Mr. S. then said, that it appeared from this warrant, that, so late as August last, certain unexpended balances of former appropriations, particularly those for the repair of the frigate Chesapeake, and building ships of war on Lake Ontario, of several years standing, had, under the direction of the President, been brought up, and a fund created out of them, which had been expended during the past year. The act of 1794 required, that all unexpended balances of appropriation remaining in the Treasury should, after two years, be carried to the surplus fund. He requested the chairman of the committee to explain by what construction of the law, relating to the President, the power had been conveyed in this case. He asked for information merely.

Mr. Smith, of Maryland, pointed out the provision in an act of the 3d March, 1809, applicable to the transfer of appropriations, which was read by the Clerk in the following words:

"Provided, That, during the recess of Congress, the President of the United States may, and he is hereby authorized, on the application of the Secretary of the proper Department, and not otherwise, to direct, if in his opinion necessary for the public service, that a portion of the moneys appropriated for a particular branch of expenditure in that Department, be applied to another branch of expenditure in the same Department; in which case, a special account of the moneys thus transferred, and of their application, shall be laid before Congress during the first week of the next ensuing session."

Some further conversation took place respecting the surplus fund; when

Mr. Randolph, of Virginia, rose, and, after referring to the origin of the surplus fund, said, that the provision of the law, which had just been read by the Clerk, struck him with some unpleasant recollections, which he could neither suppress nor conceal. It was now just twenty years, since he had first had the honor of a seat in this House. At that time, the persons of the political description to which he had conceived himself to belong, were contending against great abuses and maladministration generally, but particularly in the fiscal concerns of the state. By the exertion of that party, seconded, he presumed, by the good sense and patriotism of the people of this country, a great revolution was effected in the government. Among the first recommendations of the Chief Magistrate who succeeded in consequence of it, was that of holding the officers of the government down to the strict administration of their duties. This, Mr. R. said, was one of the cardinal principles on which the old Republican party came into power. He did not wish to revive party feelings by what he should say—far from it—what he was now speaking of was history. Mr. Jefferson—he hoped it was not out of order to name him—came into power, recommending, among other reformations of abuse, a strict adherence to appropriations. It was in the very last night of his political life, about midnight, that that law, which had just been quoted, was put on the statute book. I did consider it at that time, said Mr. R. as a sort of death-warrant to the principles upon which he came into power, so far as they were connected with that provision. And how came that law upon the statute book? At that time, he said, there were two great rivals for power and interest, one of whom might be considered the ascendant in the Senate, and the other not less so here. That law, Mr. Randolph suggested, was a sort of propitiation from one to the other—a compromise of differences between these two personages. I confess to you, said Mr. R. that the whole progress of this business, since the House resolved itself into a committee of the whole, has struck me, being long out of this House, with some astonishment. What! has the honorable chairman of the committee of Ways and Means voted this morning against an appropriation of eight hundred dollars for a room for the use of the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia—and, at this late hour of the day, are we to decide on questions of real magnitude, when some of the members have left the House, and some have gone home to spend their Christmas with their neighbors—and above all, on a money-bill, putting our hands in the pockets of the people? Mr. R. said, he did not set himself up for a censor; he came here to be instructed, not to instruct; but it was astonishing to him, that matters of little moment should be contested, at least with spirit, when public monies are proposed to be voted, largely, without discussion. He was willing, he said, to give to the Navy all that the Navy requires—to appropriate the public money where public money was necessary; but he was not willing to transact the public business in this way.

Mr. Smith, of Md. made a few observations on points on which he more fully enlarged on the following day, as hereafter appears. He intimated that he had no objection to the committee's rising, that members might have an opportunity to obtain such information as they wished on this subject.

Mr. Mercer of Virginia, said, before the committee rose, he wished to suggest to the honorable chairman of the committee of ways and means, that he was desirous of obtaining information on another point than that which had been referred to. The act of the last session of Congress, for imposing additional restraints on that abominable kind of traffic which had so long disgraced the civilized world, had been hailed as an evidence of the intention of the government effectually to use its efforts to suppress it. He was obliged to believe, that nothing had been yet done towards this object. He did not wish that we should borrow from the humane feelings of the world the tribute of applause to our generosity, when the Treasury had been actually barred up against expenditure for the object held forth in the act of the last session.

Mr. Smith, of Md. said, that, at the time the law of last session passed, the public vessels were not in a condition to go on foreign service until they were repaired. It was the very act of repairing and fitting out these vessels, which made necessary the additional appropriations now asked for. He said he had, in private life, had much to do with repairs of vessels, and he had invariably found it impracticable to estimate accurately the expenditures until they had been made. This was at least equally true as to repairs of public vessels, &c.

Mr. Floyd, of Va. rose to say, that, having been a member of the committee of the last Congress, whose investigations had led to the report of the bill, which became a law, for the more effectual suppression of the Slave Trade, the understanding of the committee was, that the money therein appropriated was intended to be applied to the purpose of transporting to Africa persons taken from slave ships, or illegally introduced into the country, and not to the purpose of fitting out the public vessels to be employed in the manner designated in that act.

Mr. Lowndes, of South Carolina, made a few remarks on the subject of transfers from one head of appropriation to another, of which the situation of the Reporter enabled him to hear only a part. It would be obvious to the house, he said, on a little reflection, that one of two things must be done: there must either be allowed to some authority of the country the power of transferring appropriations from one object to another, or, in respect to all objects depending on contingencies, on the fluctuation of the market, the appropriations must be made to an amount much larger than at the time of making them may appear necessary. Congress must, if no power be given to transfer appropriations, appropriate, in all such cases, not what is necessary now, but what may be necessary in the greatest possible fluctuation of the market. To insist upon a precise estimate of the amount
each branch of the public service may require for a year ensuing, is to insist upon a degree of accuracy not to be expected. If a strict adherence to the letter of appropriations was required, Congress would be under the necessity of leaving the amount of appropriations for specific objects larger than necessary, and of greater amount than ought to be placed at the discretion of the government. A proper jealousy on the part of this house, to prevent the diversion of public money from the objects for which it is appropriated, could not but be salutary; but some power of transferring appropriations is necessary—and, being necessary, it appeared to him the power was now as well lodged as might be. Therefore, though he had no objection to the committee's rising to investigate other objects which had been brought into view, he saw no reason for its rising in what had fallen from gentlemen respecting the transfers of appropriations.

Mr. Randolph, after expressing his regret that the remarks of Mr. Lowndes had induced him again to rise, asked, if the necessity for the provision in the law of 1809 had been so urgent, how had it happened that Mr. Jefferson's administration had gone on to the end of its eighth year, without such a law? At the moment when he was about to retire from office, the two houses had presented him with a bill, clothing him with a power which he not only did not wish to have, but which he had publicly and solemnly said ought not to belong to any executive. It would have been highly proper in him to have refused his signature to that act. But, might it not be supposed that, at the last moment of his political service, when he would have been more than human had he not been agitated by a variety of passions, the provision in question had escaped even his keen sight? Mr. R. again referred to the origin of the law of 3d March, 1809. It would be recollected, he said, that at the last session of Congress during which Mr. Jefferson exercised the powers of President, he had recommended the disposition of the surpluses of revenue upon certain objects of great public interest. So much of the Message as related to that subject, was referred (said Mr. R.) to a committee, of which I had the honor and the ill-fortune to be chairman. It will be evident to every one who hears me, that the amount of the surplus, which would remain in the Treasury, must depend on the amount of expenditures to be authorized. To ascertain the amount of these expenditures, before the several appropriation bills were passed, was beyond the financial talents even of the gentleman from Maryland. But, in consequence of the disagreement to which he had alluded when up before, which extended itself to the two houses of Congress, the Navy Appropriation Bill did not pass until near (if not after) midnight, on the last night of the session. Here, then, was a committee, charged with saying what surplus would remain unexpended in the Treasury, when so large an item as the amount to be appropriated for the service of the Navy was unascertained. That committee met, prepared a report, and were ready to make it when that bill should pass. But they could not make it, for the circumstance already stated; and they labored under the censure of not having made a report, when it was impossible that they could have made one. One word more, Mr. R. said, and he had done. He should not be at all surprised, if these words, surplus fund and balance of appropriation, should lead some of us into a mistake. A balance of appropriation was one thing, and a balance of money was another. It was a balance of appropriation carried to the surplus fund, but it was by no means certain that it was, and it seldom was, a balance of money.

On suggestion of Mr. Storrs, the 16th section of the act of March 3d, 1795, was read; which is in the following words:

"Sec. 16. And be it further enacted, That, in regard to any sum which shall have remained unexpended, upon any appropriation other than for the payment of interest on the funded debt; for the payment of interest upon, and reimbursement, according to contract, of any loan or loans made on account of the United States; for the purpose of the sinking fund; or for a purpose, in respect to which a longer duration is specially assigned by law, for more than two years after the expiration of the calendar year in which the act of appropriation shall have been passed, such appropriation shall be deemed to have ceased and been determined; and the sum so unexpended shall be carried to an account on the books of the Treasury, to be denominated "The surplus fund."

The committee now rose, reported progress, and had leave to sit again.

TUESDAY, DEC. 28.

It was not until to-day, that the house resumed the consideration of this subject. When, having resolved itself into a committee of the whole,

Mr. Smith, of Maryland, said, that the course which the discussion had taken on a former day, on the bill now under consideration, would make it necessary for him to travel back into our laws, and the proceedings under them, and would plead his apology for the time that he should be under the necessity of occupying. Enquiry, said he, was made, as to the manner of executing the act of 1795, and the proceedings of the executive officers under the act of 1809, and doubts seem to have been entertained that the first had been evaded, and the last executed on improper principles.

An act passed in 1795, commonly called the sinking fund, its object the gradual payment of the national debt, into which was gathered every item that could be spared. Among others it was enacted, "That any sum unexpended, or any appropriation, for more than two years after the date of the appropriation, should pass to an account to be called, The Surplus Fund," and thus form a part of the sinking fund. At that period there was no Navy Department. The Secretary of War was vested, by the act of 1789, with powers to superintend naval affairs. All moneys required for either the army or navy, however trifling, were drawn by warrants direct on the Treasury. This mode was found extremely inconvenient and troublesome to the departments. On the 30th of April, 1798, an act passed erecting the Navy Department, and on the 16th July, of the same year, a law passed, "That the Treasurer of the United States shall disburse all such money as shall have been ordered for the use of the army or navy." The Treasurer of the United States thus became the Treasurer, or Banker, of the War and Navy Departments. The Heads of each drew from the Treasury in large sums, and deposited them with their Treasurer, on whom they drew warrants as the wants of the departments required. Prior to the act of July, 1798, all unexpended balances in the Treasury were carried to the surplus fund; subsequent to that act, the money is drawn into the hands of the Treasurer, for the use of the army & navy. Although there have been unexpended balances, they have not been considered such as the law contemplated to be carried to the "Surplus Fund." and such has been the uniform practice under those several acts: all unexpended balances in the Treasury Department go, after two years, to the "Surplus Fund;" those in the hands of the Treasurer of the War and Navy Departments do not; they are applied as wanted for the public service.

During the administration of General Washington and Mr. Adams, a gross sum was applied, by the appropriation law, for the army and navy, to be disbursed on certain specific objects. The whole amount was considered as applicable to all or any of the specific items; so that, if there was too much allowed for one of the objects, the officers were authorized to apply the surplus to meet any deficiency that might arise in others. That mode was not approved by Mr. Jefferson—and, in his inaugural speech, I find the following recommendation, to wit:

"In our care of the public contributions entrusted to our discretion, it would be prudent to multiply barriers against their dissipation, by appropriating specific sums to every specific purpose susceptible of definition, by disallowing all applications of money, varying from the appropriation in object, or transcending it in amount, by reducing the undefined field of contingencies, and thereby circumscribing discretionary powers over money; and by bringing back to a single department all accountabilities for money, where the examination may be prompt, efficacious, and uniform."

I had always believed that a law had immediately passed to carry into execution those views. I can find no such law. There, however, is a difference in the caption of the appropriation laws, passed thereafter, which, with the recommendation of Mr. Jefferson, operated so as that, ever after, the officers considered themselves bound not to exceed the amount appropriated to each specific object in the law. This new mode was beautiful in theory, but was attended with great inconvenience and public injury in practice. No estimate can provide for unforeseen occurrences. No man, when he undertakes repairs to a ship, can estimate what they will cost. The consequence was, that Congress had occasion to pass laws like the present, to provide for deficiencies. The President had under his particular care the expenditures
On the Public Buildings. and with all his care exceeded the appropriation, in four items of specification, to the amount of $102,000, to remedy which excess of expenditure, Congress passed an act, dated 20th April, 1808. The inconveniences of this system were felt and became subjects of conversation. To remedy them, Mr. Hillhouse did, on the 13th of February, 1809, introduce into the Senate a resolution, "That a committee be appointed to take into consideration the several acts relative to the Treasury, War, and Navy," and a committee composed of Mr. Giles, Mr. Hillhouse, and Mr. Crawford, were elected. Thus, then, the subject matter of the act of 1809 was introduced 20 days before it became a law. The act passed the Senate without opposition—it was sent to the House, and, on its first reading, a motion was made by Willis Alston, "to reject," (an extraordinary motion) and carried almost by acclamation. An appropriation for the army and navy was then on its passage in the House, to which was tacked some section for the regulation of the several departments; it went to the Senate, who were offended that such subjects should be connected with an appropriation bill; they struck them out, and by way of amendment, inserted their own bill—the House negatived their amendment—the Senate insisted—the House insisted, and conferees were appointed: the result was, that the appropriation bill was separated, and the act of 1809 became the law of the land. The act had been in transit 20 days—had been the subject of conversation, but, whether the particular attention of the President had been called to its provisions or not, I am uninformed. That law enacts, that all warrants shall specify the item of specification to which the same shall be charged—that the War and Navy Department shall report to Congress distinct accounts of the application of each expenditure under its respective specification; that the President may, on the application of either Secretary, transfer the surplus of any one specification to meet the deficiency in any other—report to be made to Congress of all such transfers; that a statement of the moneys applied to the payment of the contingent expenses of the war and navy departments shall be laid before Congress at the beginning of each year.

I again repeat, that the uniform practice under those laws has been to consider all moneys drawn by the War and Navy Departments from the Treasury, and deposited with their Treasurer, as taken completely out of the purview of the surplus fund, and, until entirely expended, subject to the President's power, under the act of 1809, to transfer the unexpended balances to any other object in the same Department, for the public service; in proof whereof, I ask leave to submit three documents which I have obtained, to wit: The direction of the Comptroller for the War and Navy Departments, relative to their conduct under the act of 1809; Remarks by the Secretary of the Navy; and a letter from the Secretary of the Treasury. (The Clerk having read those documents, Gen. Smith proceeded.) I have stated what has been the uniform practice under the acts of 1795 and 1809; the documents just read fully confirm what I have stated. Has the construction given to those laws by the Executive been erroneous? Of that, every gentleman will determine for himself if it has. Congress has had it every year presented to their view; it has not been kept a secret; a report of those unexpended balances, in the Army and Navy, has annually been before every member, and the statement printed, showing those very items, (which caused the present discussion,) as balances unexpended for the last three years, decreasing annually according as they were in part transferred to some other object of public service. The whole subject has been faithfully reported to Congress; no objection having been made, no notice taken, Congress did negatively approbate the construction given to the law. At all events, no censure can attach to the present Head of the Navy Department. He has conducted his Department agreeably to the rules prescribed by the Comptroller, and to the practice which had uniformly prevailed. If another and different construction be considered more advantageous to the public interest, a law to remedy must be enacted. A remedy to prevent transfers being made from objects in their nature permanent has already been applied by the act of 1817, which "prohibits the President from transferring any appropriation made for fortification, arsenals, armories, custom houses, docks, navy yards, or buildings of any fort, munitions of war, or pay of the army or navy, to any other object." I have, Mr. Chairman, taken a view of all the laws which apply to the object of the enquiry made on a former day, and, having furnished the information required from the Departments, I will proceed to consider the bill under consideration.

An appropriation is required, of $475,000, to pay the deficiencies in the navy expenditures for the year 1819. The appropriation for the navy, for that year was signed on the 16th of February. The estimates had been made on the expenses that would be necessary under the existing laws. The deficiency has arisen from various causes. The Senate, being informed that the estimates for the naval service had not gone through the corrective of the Navy Commissioners, applied to them for information, and, in consequence, reduced the amount of some of the items, increased others, and, on the whole bill, made a reduction of $400,000. On the 3d March, at the last hour, two bills passed; one to suppress piracy, the other to prevent the trade in slaves, and directed the President to employ the Navy of the United States in carrying into execution those highly important laws: but the framers supplied no means, made no appropriation, to enable the President to fit, arm and man the vessels intended for that service. There were, then, no means in his power, except those under the general appropriation bill of 16th February, and they have (as must have been foreseen) proved inadequate. In the merchant service, the rule is, "Break your owners rather than break your orders." This rule might be very dangerous in governments. The President obeyed the laws; no doubt, under a well-founded confidence that Congress would appropriate the money necessary to carry into effect their own acts. He might have declined, and have told us—you made no appropriations, and, therefore, I have done nothing towards carrying into effect those two important laws. He has acted a more magnanimous part, and has assumed a responsibility. In obedience to the law, he put into commission the Constellation, Enterprise, three schooners and two gun-boats, and he has caused to be repaired and ready for service the Cyane: that vessel was taken from the British, was very rotten, and has cost nearly as much as a new vessel. He also has employed the Hornet (not contemplated in the estimate) in going to and from Spain, on the subject of the treaty. In addition to those expenses, he has caused the Columbus to be prepared for sea; he has prepared masts and spars, at the different navy yards, to be ready in case of accidents; he has sent stores for six months, and 2,000 barrels of provision, to the Mediterranean; and bills to an unusual amount have been drawn, by Com. Stewart and the Navy Agents, on our bankers in London, who are actually in advance for the Navy Department $206,000, for which we are now paying interest—an advance that they never ought to be subject to, and which has arisen from the funds having been diverted to carry into effect the two laws alluded to.

I trust, Mr. Chairman, I have given satisfactory reasons to show that the extra-expenditures in the Navy Department have been indispensable, and that the bill ought to pass.

Mr. Storrs said, that, having had the honor to ask of the chairman of the committee of ways and means the explanation which the honorable gentleman had furnished to the house, he was entitled to his thanks for the information which he had given of the construction which had been put on the law of 1809. Having recently had occasion to examine the mode in which the appropriation accounts were kept, he was not surprised at the nature of this extraordinary interpretation of the power of transfer from one specific appropriation to another. He had determined to bring the subject into notice at the first opportunity, and the information had been asked that the House might be officially informed of the extent of the practice under the law of 1809, and that, after a full knowledge of the evasion of the law of 1795, the evil might be corrected. He did not, however, expect to hear, and was indeed surprised to learn, from the documents which the honorable gentleman had produced this morning, that re-payments into the Treasury had been carried back to the credit, and been considered as increasing the funds of the departments for whose use the original appropriations had been drawn out. The original introduction of such a practice was justified by scarcely a semblance of authority.

The law of the 3d of March, 1795, provides that, in regard to all sums remaining unexpended upon any appropriations, (except those relating to the public debt, or where a longer duration was specially assigned,) for more than two years after the expiration of the calendar year in which the act of appropriation shall have passed, such appropriation shall be deemed to have ceased and been determined, and the sums so unexpended shall be carried to the surplus fund. The proviso to the first sec-
tion of the act of March 3d, 1809, authorizes the President in the recess of Congress, to direct that a portion of the monies, appropriated for a particular branch of expenditure, be applied to another branch of expenditure in the same department. The chairman of the committee now informs us that the practice has been, that the monies appropriated for the use of the army and navy are respectively drawn from the Treasury, on the warrant of the heads of the departments, and placed in the hands of the Treasurer of the United States, as agent for the respective departments; that, when once drawn out on these warrants, such monies are no longer considered as in the Treasury; and, although large balances of these appropriations may remain unexpended for any indefinite length of time, are deemed to be exempt from the operation of the law of 1795, but may remain in the Treasurer's hands for years, subject to be brought forward under the power of transfer, and collected into a fund for the use of the departments, as exigency or convenience may require. This practice, said Mr. S. so far from being consistent with the object and execution of the law of 1795, is directly opposed to its manifest intention and spirit. The distinction between balances in the Treasury and in the hands of the Treasurer, is totally unwarranted by the statute. It does not relate merely to balances remaining undrawn by warrant from the Treasury; its terms are general and unqualified, and include any sum remaining unexpended, without reference to its intermediate transmission to the departments, or to any regulations which might be adopted in the mode of keeping the public accounts. After two years, these balances cannot be reached by the power of transferring appropriations; for the letter of the act expressly declares that after that period, such appropriations shall be deemed to have ceased and determined. No such appropriations, therefore, exist, on which the power of transfer could operate. The practical effect of the administration of the finances, under the system which has been thus introduced, has rendered the law of 1795 little else than a dead letter. If gentlemen will examine, they will find that, while for several years past large balances have been brought forward and expended, the product to the surplus fund, from the source of unexpended appropriations, has been scarcely an item of the account. The framer of the law of 1795 could never have conceived its practical inutility, by this perversion of its spirit. So pertinaciously has the error been persisted in, said Mr. S. that I have been informed that a former Secretary of the Treasury, on a consultation with him by one of the heads of department, relative to the disposition of large balances, which at one time had accumulated, answered, that he knew of no method by which they could be legally or regularly brought back into the Treasury, and that, the only way in which they could be disposed of, was to disburse the monies, nolens volens, for the use of the department. It is the duty of the House to interfere and check the abuses to which such a system tends. In the hands of a profligate and corrupt administration, (and we have no reason to believe that we shall hereafter be exempt from the common lot of nations,) the accumulation of these funds may enable them successfully to defy even the power of Congress. For one, I will trust no administration with pecuniary resources beyond the annual appropriations voted by this House. There are many considerations which might be urged, and I hope successfully will be, against the practice which is now developed, when this subject shall be brought before us for legislation immediately in relation to it.

Sir, said Mr. S. although the honorable chairman of the committee of Ways and Means has disclosed that branch of our system of public expenditure which relates to the power of transfer, yet there are other subjects intimately connected with it, which deserve our attention. The only clue which is furnished to the House by which the amount of these balances, at any period, can be discovered, is the account annually rendered by the Heads of the Departments, in pursuance of the act of 1809. But, as if, by the most singular fatality, the whole system was intended to elude all our vigilance and sagacity, these balances are by the act directed to be made up to the 30th day of September, in each year. While we appropriate for the dominical year, the fiscal year commences, and ends on the 30th of September. The consequence of this variance between them is, that the annual accounts of the Departments rendered to Congress fall three months short of the commencement of the period of appropriations for the ensuing year, and at the same time extend back and include three months disbursements of the appropriations made two years before the rendition of the account. If we undertake, therefore, the examination of the account for the fiscal year preceding this session, we shall find that it includes the disbursement of the last annual appropriation during six months only. Although balances may appear to be standing in the books on the 30th of September, it is doubtful whether any such balances exist on the 1st of January succeeding; at least the House have no documents by which it may be determined. It might often be highly expedient, that the balances of appropriations of certain descriptions, as they exist at the commencement of the year, should be deducted from the new appropriations. The House had no means of ascertaining the propriety of that course. It was, indeed, time that the committee of Ways and Means, in making up their estimates, might be enabled, by diligent and close enquiry at the public offices, to determine with some degree of certainty the amount of deduction which it might be prudent to make; but the accounts should be so kept and rendered, that every member could easily understand and comprehend the operations and results of the whole system." It should be reduced at least to such simplicity, that not only the appropriations of one year might be precisely compared with the expenditures of the same year, but that the expenditure under each appropriation might be distinctly traced. This could not be done so long as the accounts of the expenditure of successive years were continually running into each other. Much less could the expenditure under the appropriations be satisfactorily traced, while the transfer of old balances to the new appropriations continued to increase the perplexity. In regard to appropriations, of a permanent character as to their objects, such as fortifications or arsenals, it might be, and properly was, inseparable from their execution, that the balances of such appropriations should remain, and the result would necessarily be, that the appropriations would in some measure be cumulative; but as to other appropriations, not of that description, a different rule should be adopted. The accountability of public agents was more perfectly secured in proportion to the simplicity of the public accounts and the frequency of settlements. As the system was now organized, all satisfactory examination of the accounts seemed to be denied to the keenest sagacity or the most penetrating ingenuity. There was, indeed, one document, which was distributed annually to the members of the House, by which the amount drawn from the Treasury on warrants in each year might be determined. He referred to the book of Receipts and Expenditures—but even the partial light furnished by this book was of no use, for, unfortunately, it was distributed some two or three years after the expenditures had been completed. The latest which he had received, comprised, he believed, the expenditures of the year 1817." It might have been of some aid had it been distributed to the members of a former Congress; but to this, the almanack of that year might have been laid on our tables with about as much practical utility.

Sir, said Mr. S. let me not be misunderstood. I am happy to find that the system which is now developed, neither originated nor was perfected under the present administration. It is not, therefore, with a view to censure it, that I have thus freely expressed my views.—From what source it may have sprung, from what hands it may have originated, or at what period it may have been introduced, is perhaps immaterial now to examine. Satisfied as the House must be, that a reform is imperiously necessary, I hope that, after the bill now before us shall have passed, our early attention will be directed to a salutary correction and revision of the system.

Mr. Mercer said, as the remarks of the honorable Chairman of the committee of ways & means had been evidently designed as a reply to the question which he had the honor of putting to him on a preceding day, it became him, Mr. M. said, to address, on his part, some explanatory observations to the committee.

It had been no part of his intention, Mr. M. said, to impute blame to the Executive for what had been done in relation to the slave trade, but rather to complain of what had been totally neglected, or too long delayed—the execution of the act of the last Congress providing additional restraints upon that detestable traffic. He had been urged to make this complaint, by the fact, which he well knew, that no squadron, not even an armed vessel, had yet sailed for the coast of Africa, although he had heard one of his honorable colleagues declare it to be his intention to move the repeal of the act of the last Congress on account of the expense to which it had put the nation; and a clause in a late report of the Secretary of
tion. He wished, Mr. M. said, to sustain, not to condemn the expenditure, which, it now seemed, has been incurred for this purpose; to prove that it was authorized by existing laws, and that, if, in the application of the public money, the naval expenditure for the current year has exceeded the general appropriation to that instrument of national defence, such excess is imputable to any other branch of that expenditure, equally with that on which it has been specifically charged in the course of the late debate.

In addition to the detailed history of the origin of this act, which had been given to the house by his honorable friend (Mr. Floyd) on yesterday, Mr. M. said he had not forgotten, and should ever take pride in remembering, that, in the passage of that act through this house, he had, almost unassisted, to encounter opposition from various quarters, and especially from the honorable member who now presides in this committee, (Mr. Nelson,) and from another of his honorable colleagues.

The honorable member from Maryland had said, doubtless with the intention of embracing him, that the friends of this act had their objects in view."

They were, sir, most palpably expressed by the act itself—to put down that detestable traffic, which, attracting to its support the most profligate adventurers of our own country, along with the outcasts of the whole world has borrowed, within the present year, the flags of Portugal and Spain, to spread its ravages to an almost unprecedented extent.

I do yet complain, said Mr. M. that, since the passage of the act designed to terminate for ever this abominable commerce, nine entire months have been expended in ineffectual efforts to fit out a small squadron to sweep the coast of Africa of these violators of all human rights. But, while I do most positively deny that a sufficient, or, indeed, any apology whatsoever, can be found for this delay in the alleged defects of the act in question, I do certainly contend that no reproach can attach to the Executive for the appropriation made to the repairs of the squadron destined for this service. If the honorable Chairman of the committee of ways and means will allow me, I will furnish what I deem a better defence of this application of the public money than he has himself supplied.

The act of the last Congress placed the whole Navy of the United States at the disposal of the President, for the purpose of capturing every American vessel which might be found engaged in the African slave trade. It neither enlarged nor diminished the general appropriation to the maintenance of the Navy of the United States. The act, passing as it did, with the support of a large majority of this House, and the almost unanimous voice of the Senate, certainly contained a recommendation to the President, to employ a part of the naval force of the country in the service pointed out by the act itself. But the President of the United States is, under the Constitution, and independent of our authority, Commander in Chief of the Navy as well as of the Army of the United States, and bound to employ both in the execution of the laws. We have long had a fleet in the Mediterranean; but where is the specific appropriation to the maintenance of that squadron? Any excess of expenditure, of the description of that which has given rise to this debate, is as properly chargeable upon the Mediterranean squadron, as on that destined, as he was happy to hear, for the coast of Africa.

If the general naval appropriations shall not suffice to defray the expense of both services; if these two objects shall ever become rivals in the Executive favor, it rests with the President, as Commander in Chief of the whole Navy, to choose between them—although I confess my total inability to perceive why those squadrons, intended for the northern coast of Africa should not scour the western shore of that continent, as well in their return home as in their outward voyage. The security of our commerce, and the honor of our Navy, cannot be more effectually promoted, than by the occasional display of its flag, in achieving the labor of humanity, required of it by the last Congress. I will evince to the world, in this employment, that our profession of abhorrence towards a traffic so long the disgrace of Europe and America, is not hypocritical—as cheap as it is insincere.

Allow me, Mr. Chairman, to question at least the policy of exposing, for so long a period, the character of our Navy to the seductive influence of Italian skies; and to remark, with some regret, that the only additions which it has recently made, to a renown most gloriously earned, arise from infractions of our own laws, and outrages upon those of other nations.

Mr. Chairman, said Mr. M. I did not rise to enter upon the other questions which have grown up in the course of this debate. I should not have risen at all, but to vindicate an act of the last Congress, the repeal of which I have heard threatened, and which is yet and will ever remain dear to my heart. Before I resume my seat, however, allow me one further remark on the doctrine, as it has been recently explained, of specific appropriations.—Its origin was contemporaneous with an effort to impeach the integrity of some of those distinguished men who composed the administrations which preceded that of Mr. Jefferson. An enquiry was, indeed, then instituted into the public expenditure, which terminated in their complete acquittal. Sir, this discussion brings to my remembrance a venerable name. That of T. Pickering will hereafter live in the recollection of a grateful country. And if my honorable colleague seated near me, (Mr. Randolph,) ever entertained feelings of hostility towards his statesman, I well remember that he amply atoned for it, by a compliment, of which I almost envy this great man; and of which it may be questioned whether it reflects greater honor upon the merit which received, or the justice and candor which bestowed it. I had, indeed, Sir, rather repose beneath a simple stone, inscribed with this brief memorial, "Here lies the friend of Washington," than have my poor remains protected by the proudest monument that ever attracted the admiration, or was bedewed by the tears of man.

Report to be continued.