Quarter-master's Department Military Academy,

at Mobile point,

90,000

Jackson,

Pensacola,

130,000

Medical and Hospital Depart

15,000

Armament of fortifications,

100,000

The bill making appropriations for the Engineer, Ordnance and Quarter-master's Department was taken up in the House, March 30th and continued under examination the next day and also April first and fifth. An appropriation of $150,000 for arming the new fortifications was stricken out by the House-yeas 130, nays 43. A motion made by Mr Crocket to strike out an appropriation of 2,500 dollars for erecting a military laboratory at West Point was negatived: as was also a motion to strike out an appropriation for a military road in Arkansas, and one for the purchase of five and a half acres of land in Springfield for the use of the national armory.

The bill was amended in the Senate and the House concurred in two of the amendments. From the other amendment it dissented and the Senate receding from it, the bill passed and became a law. By this act appropriations were made

Contingencies,

National armories,

Arsenals,
Recruiting service,
For arrearages prior to 1817,

66

of 1828,

To carry into effect subsisting treaties, Expenses in holding Indian treaties, . .14,022

When the bill appropriating these last items came under consideration, Mr Vance moved an amendment to the clause giving pay to Colonel M'Neill, so as to preclude him from receiving pay both as an officer of the army and as a commissioner to hold a treaty with the Indians.

Mr Miller asked if the officer alluded to had received his pay as an officer and was about to receive the pay as a commissioner.

Mr Vance said he did not know the fact, but he knew what had been the practice. The officer now at the head of this government received his full pay as an officer, and also as a commissioner for holding treaties.

Mr Cambreleng asked if there were not some incidental ex

penses.

Mr Vance said, that could not effect the item under consideration.

Mr Wickliffe said he should vote for the amendment.

Mr McDuffie suggested that General M'Neill should have his option, either to take his pay as an officer or his pay as a commissioner.

Mr Vance then modified his amendment so as to make its phraseology correspond with the wishes of Mr McDuffie.

The amendment was agreed to. The bill was then reported to the House, when

Mr Miller objected to the amendment as to the pay of General M'Neill.

Mr Buchanan also took exception to this amendment, on the ground that however just the principle that the Government had an undoubted right to the whole services of their officers, it was not correct to apply the principle in a case where the officer must have accepted the duty under the implied understanding that the old practice was to be continued. He suggested that the Committee on Retrenchment should report a bill to prevent these double allowances.

Mr Wickliffe stated that the Committee had reported such a bill.

Mr Burges spoke in favor of the amendment, and asked gentlemen from what law or practice officers received extra pay for civil services. If there was none such, then there could be no im

plied understanding that in the present case such would be the result. He stated the practice to have been that an officer who was employed in the civil service, should not receive pay as an officer at the time that he was receiving pay for those civil services. There was a rule in existence under the old Congress which prevents such double pay; and no gentleman had produced any law showing a contrary practice. We are, however, promised a milennium of retrenchment; and so we had been promised from year to year. He hoped such would be the case, and that abuse after abuse should not be permitted until we became bankrupt by precedent. He would have given this officer his double pay if such was the contract made with him, but not under the idea that there existed any implied understanding in consequence of any existing law tolerating such construction.

Mr Polk made some observations in reply, in which he expressed himself content with the amendment.

Mr Vance disclaimed any idea of introducing party feelings, as was intimated by the last gentleman. He thought that although he did not belong to the Committee on Retrenchment, he had supposed he might offer something like a bit of retrenchment. He stated that he had always been an enemy to those double allowances; and had determined to take the first opportunity of resisting them. In this case the officer was perhaps less entitled to this double pay than any, be

cause he commanded a post in the immediate neighborhood of these Indians, and as the commander of the post he had double rations and extra allowances. He did not wish to introduce party considerations. He had indeed referred to a distinguished individual who had received double pay; and if the gentleman wished to draw back money from those who had received double allowances it will operate as severely at head-quarters as anywhere. He asked for the yeas and nays on this question.

Mr Drayton defended the practice of employing officers as commissioners to hold Indian treaties, and moved to amend the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio, by striking out all after the word that,' and inserting words which made the provision general and prospective.

Mr Vance said he had been asked by a gentleman from Pennsylvania if this had been the practice of Government, and he had risen and said this was the practice, and had referred to the only case within his knowledge. He wished to be understood as having had good reason for his reference; and if he had misunderstood the exact terms of the interrogatories put to him he had merely made a mistake, and he was willing to have it attributed to him whether he had made his remark gratuitously or not.

Mr Grennell replied briefly to the remarks of the gentleman from South Carolina, as to the peculiar propriety of employing officers as negotiators, and to the idea thrown out that General

M'Neill had entered on the duties of commissioner under the implied understanding that he was entitled to double pay.

Mr Barnwell made some remarks in favor of the double allowance to General M'Neill. He contended that where, by an erroneous construction, officers had received more than the sums to which they were entitled, it was unjust to compel him who had rendered the service, to refund. The fault is in those who have put the false construction on the law, and who alone should be responsible.

Mr Davis, of Massachusetts, rose and observed that, he should not detain the House but a moment, as it appeared to be anxious to take the question. But he would join the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr Barnwell.) in calling attention back to the real ground of discussion. The bill provided for the reimbursement of money paid by the Executive, where no appropriation had been made, for the services of an officer of the army holding by brevet the rank of a Brigadier General, who had served as a commissioner in making a treaty with the Winnebagoes and others. This officer, at the time of his appointment, was in the military service, and drawing his pay; and the question is, whether he shall, in addition to his pay as an officer, receive also the pay of a commissioner.

The appointment, he said, was not a military command, which the officer was obliged to obey, but a civil commission which he had his option to accept or de

cline, as he might think expedient. It was an appointment to another service of a totally different character, and to be rewarded in a different manner. He accepted that appointment and performed the service, and it had been said that the Government became thereby bound to allow him his pay as a military officer, and also the same amount in addition as the other commissioners had who served in but one capacity. This, sir, would be paying for service by construction-because nothing is more plain than that he would not render service to the the Government in both offices.

When he accepted the appointment as commissioner and entered upon the duties, he ceased to perform all duties as a military officer and thereby ceased to have any right to pay unless we mean to adopt the doctrine that a person shall have pay for ser

vices which he does not and cannot perform. He could not, he said, bring his mind to the belief that the Government was under any legal or equitable obligation to make such an allowance, as the service as commissioner was the voluntary choice of the officer, and assumed by him with a full knowledge that his military service must cease, and therefore his pay ought to stop.

It has been said that precedents exist. On this point he observed he was uninformed: but if such precedents existed it was now acknowledged on all hands to be an abuse, and there seems to be no reason why the injurious practice should be further countenanced. This officer, by his

own election, placed himself on the same ground as other commissioners, and it would seem hardly just to them to pay him twice as much as they receive for their services. He therefore hoped the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr Vance) would so far prevail as to limit the principle to those bounds.

Mr Clay suggested to the gentleman from South Carolina to withdraw his amendment until the other amendment should be disposed of.

Mr Drayton withdrew his amendment.

Mr Buchanan then stated the case of General M'Neill and advocated the propriety of his appointment, and of the remuneration now made to him by the bill. The money had been received, as appeared on the face of the bill, and it would be unjust to compel him to refund it.

Mr Coulter admitted that the President might employ a general of the army to negotiate, and it often occurs that, in consequence of this military character, he is a negotiator. A Governor of a State is often employed, but a Governor is not an officer of the United States. A military officer in the pay of the United States has no claim to additional compensation for his civil service, and if he has received double pay, he cannot, in conscience, retain it. He referred to the case of Com modore Decatur, who negotiated a treaty with the Barbary Powers. There was an officer employed by General Washington to negotiate a treaty. He was allowed his expenses, but not double

pay. He understood that the expenses are allowed to General M'Neill.

Mr Sutherland spoke in favor of the allowance in the bill and against the amendment.

Mr J. W. Taylor said the only question is, if you will reimburse your contingent fund the money which has been taken out of it. If you do, the contingent fund is made whole; if not, your contingent fund is short. It is not a question if you will pay General M'Neill. He has received his money; and if you direct the law officer to institute a suit against General M'Neill, the general will produce the commission of the President-prove that he has done his duty, and no court will compel him to refund a cent. He thought, therefore, the amendment irrelevant and would vote against it.

Mr Sterigere now called for the previous question, which was seconded by a majority of the House.

The previous question was then put and carried [which supersedes all pending amendments,] and the main question was put, viz: on the engrossment of the bill, and carried yeas 84, nays 52.

--

The sum of five hundred thousand dollars was also appropriated to carry into effect the bill providing for the removal of the Indians. An account of this bill has already been given in chapter

third.

Certain sums, being unexpended balances, were also reappropriated

also

An appropriation was made for the partial settlement of a claim of long standing, and which involved no slight political feeling. This was the claim for the services of the militia of Massachusetts during the late war with Great Britain. This claim had been objected to because the Government of the State had refused to place the militia under officers of the Federal Government; and though in some instances their services were such as to render the claim undeniable, yet no distinction had been made between the different classes of claims, and the unadjusted account had hitherto been the subject of dispute. Now, however, an appropriation was made of four hundred and thirty thousand seven hundred and fortyeight dollars, for the payment of all claims for services where the militia were called out to repel invasion, either actual or where good ground existed to apprehend it: 2d. Where the calling out was recognised by the Federal Government: 3d. Where they were called out and served under the requisition of the President of the United States, or of an officer of the United States.

Appropriations were also made for the internal improvement of the country; but from the peculiar importance which this subject assumed towards the close of the session, it is deemed proper to treat of this class of appropriations in a separate chapter.