lars. He was also incorrect in stating the sum called for during the last year of Mr Monroe's administration. He says it was two hundred thousand dollars. The book shows that it was but one hundred and seventysix thousand; and that amount was not expended, but was faithfully accounted for by the honorable gentleman then at the head of the State Department.

The gentleman from New York threw out another insinuation, when alluding to the extravagance of the administration when the late President was Secretary of State. Is he aware where that leads him? The appropriations then were liberal. The last year that Mr Adams was Secretary of State, the year 1824, the appropriation was one hundred and fortynine thousand dollars-liberal, but not more liberal than the present year. In the year 1823 there was but seventy four thousand dollars called for not one half as much as is asked for this year. In the year 1822, but eightythree thousand dollars was asked for this fund. The increase was gradual the public history explained the cause of the increase; if the gentleman from New York would examine, he would find that the expenses were not more than was reasonable, and not beyond those of the present time. The salaries are all fixed by law, and the sum to be called for is accordingly ascertained. In my previous remarks I made no intimation that there was anything more than necessity called for at present. I would suggest to the gentleman, however, if, in refer

-

ring to abuses which have heretofore existed, it is worth our while to run into those which we have condemned? Are we, in the first year of reform, to do the very thing we have once censured? It appears that outfits have been taken this year from the contingent fund. I do not complain because they do this, but because they do now what, during the last administration, they condemned.

Mr Buchanan said, he did not expect the House would get into a party debate upon an appropriation bill. He did not think either of the gentlemen who had spoken had taken a correct view of the subject. It must be admitted, in the regulation of foreign intercourse, that a small saving may be an immense loss. It is the duty of the Executive to have the foreign intercourse so conducted that the interests of the country shall suffer no loss. It could not be possible that the wisdom or folly of any administration was to be tested by the expenditure under one or another head of appropriations. Statesmen looked at the objects, and considered what the country required. I was one that condemned the last administration, not on account of the money expended, but because, in my judgment, they expended it in violation of the law of 1810. That system had grown up under one President, followed by the others, until outfits were charged for appointments made abroad. There had been appointments made of Ministers about to return, converting their Secretaries into Chargés, and allowing them four

thousand five hundred dollars for outfits; and in one case this had been done only to return. But this was a question for the people to settle. The Executive was competent to make recalls, and who would condemn him for using his discretion. It must be an extreme case, indeed, for the House to withhold appropriations enabling the Executive to use a discretion which he was at liberty to use. The people would decide whether his movements were judicious.

Mr Everett said that he agreed with the gentleman from Pennsylvania, who had just taken his seat, as to the cause of the increase in the appropriation. That gentleman had stated it to be the recall of several of the foreign ministers and the outfits of their successors; and it was evident, from the comparison of the bill of this year with the appropriation law of the last, that such was the fact. He also agreed with the gentleman from Pennsylvania, that the recall and appointment of Ministers was a matter of Executive discretion; and that it was only in an extreme case that the House would be justified in interposing to withhold an appropriation for the outfit of a Minister thus appointed. Mr Everett begged to recall to the recollection of the House the manner in which this debate arose. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr Wickliffe), had put the question to the Chairman of the Commit tee of Ways and Means, why the appropriation for the diplomatic service of this year amounted to one hundred and eighty thousand dollars, while the last year it was

but one hundred and thirtyseven thousand? To his inquiry the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means had replied that, there had been, previous to the last year, an accumulation of unexpended balances of former appropriations, which had rendered it necessary to appropriate less for that year; but that these surpluses being all expended, a larger sum was required for this year. With great deference to the source from which this statement proceeded, Mr Everett could not agree to its correctness. He did not find, in looking at the estimates from the Department of State for 1829, that there was any such surplus under this head of appropriation.

Mr McDuffie said it was far from his intention to say anything which any human being could construe into a party allusion. He did, in reply to the question of the gentleman from Kentucky, state the reason that the balance of the fund was all expended.

Mr Everett said that, the gentleman's explanation was in accordance with his own view of the case, and he was about, himself, immediately to state that, the surplus alluded to was in a different fund, for which no appropriation at all was made in 1829; and that consequently the increase of forty thousand dollars in the diplomatic service of the present year over the last, was not owing to any such surplus being added to the appropriation of 1829. It was an increase of expenditure, owing, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania stated, to the recall of the foreign Ministers and

sors.

the appointment of their succesSupposing this matter to be now understood all round the House, he should say no more about it.

He must however, dwell a moment on another point connected with this appropriation, in which, after what had been said, he need not disclaim being a volunteer. These outfits, to the amount of over forty thousand dollars, have been paid, without any specific appropriation. On the contrary, a gentleman from Georgia (Mr Wilde), the last winter, proposed, in Committee of the Whole, to make an apptopriation for the outfits of Ministers who might be appointed; and the Committee declined making such an appropriation. They passed the bill as they found it, with specific appropriations for certain designated salaries and outfits, with an estimated addition for contingencies of twenty thousand dollars. This looked rather

when considered in connexion with the refusal of the Committee just alluded to-like excluding all outfits not provided for in the bill. And yet, notwithstanding this, forty thousand dollars, in outfits, for which no appropriation had been made, have been paid during the past summer.

Mr Everett did not mention this as criminating the present administration, but as vindicating the past. It had been asserted and reiterated here and elsewhere, that the late administration had improperly paid outfits out of the contingent fund; and transferred to one object what

was specifically appropriated to another. Now here we have forty thousand dollars expended in outfits, without any specific appropriation; although two outfits, he believed, were specified in the act of last year. From what fund the money was taken he could hardly tell.

That part of the estimates was not very clear. There is no such thing as a' diplomatic fund' known to the appropriation law. The sum now asked for appears to be asked as a repayment of so much taken from other items. Of this he was not disposed to complain; but he hoped gentlemen would now feel how unjustly the late administration had been criminated for a course so soon adopted by the present, and which must of necessity be adopted by any, administration.

Mr McDuffie replied that, whatever other people had said, he had made no such charge against the late administration, nor had he said such appropriations were wrong. Whoever made such objection could not understand the subject.

Mr Everett replied that, he did not maintain that the gentleman from South Carolina, individually, had held this doctrine. But it had been distinctly laid down, in the reports of two Committees of the House, at the last Congress, the Committee on the Expenditures of the Department of State and the Retrenchment Committee. The latter Committee had recommended the abolition of the fund for the contingent expenses of the Foreign Missions on the ground that it enabled the Ex

ecutive, at his discretion, to augment the allowance to Foreign Ministers.

Mr Cambreleng thought the gentleman from Massachusetts must have confounded the Secret Service Fund with the Fund for Foreign Intercourse. That was That was the only fund which the Committee on Retrenchment proposed to abolish.

Mr Everett said, I am no: mistaken. The Committee of Retrenchment proposed to abolish the fund appropriated for the contingent expenses of all the missions abroad,' as the gentleman from New York would find by turning to their report.

Mr Norton said, during his legislative life he had always voted for the largest sum reported by the Committee. He was not one who expected to build himself up by talking of retrenchment. He did not feel as if he was called upon to inquire whether the sum received was large or small; he trusted to the able gentleman who was at the head of the Committee of Ways and Means, and he should vote for it as it stood.

The bill was then passed and sent to the Senate for concurrence. In the Senate the bill was taken up on the 4th of March and an amendment reported by the Committee of Finance to strike out the amendments proposed in the House by Messrs Wickliffe and Polk, in relation to the printing of Congress, became the topic of

discussion. The debate was interrupted by other business and postponed to the next day, when the bill was again taken up.

A division was called for by Mr Barnard, and the question was taken on the first member of the sentence, viz: to strike out the words, Provided, That no part of the appropriation shall be applied to any printing other than of such documents or papers as are connected with the ordinary proceedings of either of the said Houses, during the session, and determined in negative - yeas 22, nays 23.

On the question to strike out the residue of the sentence, viz : and executed by the public printers agreeably to their contracts, unless authorized by an act or a joint resolution; it was determined in the negative-yeas 22, nays 23.

A motion was made to strike out the outfits of the new ministers appointed since the 4th of March, 1829, and negatived — yeas 3, nays 39.

Certain unimportant amendments were then made in the bill, which was passed and sent to the House, where the amendments were concurred in and the bill became a law.

By this act the following appropriations were made, viz · For the expenses of the Ex

ecutive Department, includ-
ing salaries of Vice Presi-
dent, all the Departments at
Washington and of the terri-
torial governments,

of Diplomatic intercourse,
Of Congress,
of the Judicial Department,

For light-houses, beacons, &c.
For pensions,

For miscellaneous expenses,
For taking the census of 1830,

in addition to $350,000 for-
merly appropriated,

$640,184 248,500

670,050

243,023

231,103

1,750

67,700

250,000

ground that they were not authorized by any law.

When this reform was brought to the knowledge of Congress, a joint resolution was passed directing those unauthorized allowances to be made as formerly; and on the last day of the session, upon discovering that these allowances had not been included in the estimates presented to Congress by the Department, a law was brought in and hurried through both Houses, appropriating in general terms a sum sufficient to pay those extra allowances. The sole effect of this reform was to cause great distress to the officers of that corps, who were curtailed of their pay for nearly a year, and finally loose the evil. and hasty legislation to remedy

for the suppression of the slave The sum formerly appropriated trade was reappropriated at the last day of the session as an expenditure falling under the supervision of the Navy Department.

No change had been recommended in the policy adopted by the Government, to gradually place the coast in a state of defence by fortifying the principal points and seaports, and the bill appropriating the necessary sums for that purpose encountered no serious opposition.

By that bill the following sums were appropriated for the completion of fortifications, viz: