1819. Also, whether if any subsequent relations have been entered into between the commissioners of this and the Government of Mexico, to carry into execution the conditions of the above-mentioned stipulations, posterior to the recognition of the latter Government as an independent Republic.

Mr. BYNUM said he had ascertained that most of the information called for in the resolution had already been communicated to Congress, and he therefore moved to lay it on the table; which was agreed to.

PAY OF OFFICERS OF THE NAVY.

The House proceeded to the consideration of the bill to equalize and regulate the pay of the officers of the navy, as reported to the House, with amendments, from the Committee of the Whole.

The first amendment, fixing the pay of senior captains, "at all times when in service, at 4,500 dollars, and when on leave of absence, or waiting orders, at 3,500 dollars," was concurred in.

The next amendment, which fixes the pay of all other captains, when commanding squadrons on coast stations, and when acting as navy commissioners, at 4,500 dolJars; when commanding navy yards, 4,000 dollars; on other duty, 3,750 dollars; on leave of absence, or waiting orders, 3.000 dollars, being under consideration: Mr. PARKER moved to strike out the words "coast stations, and when acting as navy commissioners."

Mr. WATMOUGH made some explanations, and expressed the hope that the motion would be rejected.

After some words from Mr. PINCKNEY, in opposi tion to the motion, the motion was rejected, and the amendment concurred in as reported.

The next amendment, which fixes the pay of masters commandant, and commanders, when on sea service, at 2,500 dollars, on other duty, at 2,000 dollars; and while waiting orders, at 1,800 dollars; being under considera

tion:

Mr. FILLMORE moved to amend it by inserting, after the words "waiting orders," the words "or on leave of absence;" which was agreed to.

Mr. WATMOUGH hoped, he said, that in this amendment the House would not concur with the committee. The difference between the amendment and the clause stricken out was but one hundred dollars.

The question being taken, the amendment was rejected.

The amendment concerning lieutenants was concurred in.

The next amendment, concerning assistant surgeons, was concurred in.

The next amendment was amended by the insertion of the word "purser," which had been omitted by an

error.

The amendment reads: "Pursers, when attached to vessels for sea service, or at navy yards, 1,400 dollars; when on leave of absence, or waiting orders, 900 dollars."

Mr. WISE asked for some information on the subject of the amendment.

Mr. WATMOUGH explained the reason which had induced the committee to change the present regulations concerning pursers. He stated that it had been deemed expedient to abolish the commissions of the pursers on tea and sugar sold out to the sailors, and the additional salary to the pursers was given to compen sate them for their loss by this abolition of the commis

sions.

[DEC. 29, 1834.

consequence of their insufficient pay, were frequently obliged to borrow money of the pursers. He adverted to practices of pursers by which the sailors were heavily taxed. Articles had been purchased at Gibraltar, and, after the vessel had gone to sea, the sailors were compelled to receive these articles at double their cost, and as specie. He estimated the annual profit of a purser on board a seventy-four at $14,000. He said he hoped the amendment would not be concurred in, although the purser now received four times as much as a captain, because he thought the regulation of their pay should be made the subject of a separate act.

Mr. PEARCE made a few remarks on the uncertainty of the passage of the bill referred to, and opposed the amendment.

Mr. PARKER hoped the House would reject the amendment, and remarked that the gentleman from Pennsylvania had, last session, introduced a bill under which he now admitted that the pursers had been draw. ing four dollars a month from the poor seamen. He wished that there should be no increase of the pay of the pursers.

Mr. WAYNE thought that the clause should be stricken out, and regretted that he must separate from the chairman on this question.

Mr. WATMOUGH said that it was the object of the provision to strike at these evils if they existed. He did not desire to increase, but he did desire to bring down the pay of the pursers, and he had desired to make the bill specific on this point.

Mr. WAYNE said he admitted, with Mr. WISE, that the subject required regulation, and for that purpose would vote to strike out the amendment; but he said he would do so to have an opportunity hereafter, when it would not interfere with the passage of the bill under discussion, to disabuse the public mind of any im proper impressions, which may have been made, that pursers were receiving, under the present system, enor. mous emoluments irregularly, and much beyond their merits or the services rendered, and responsibilities incurred by that valuable and essential class of officers. He also added that, when that subject should be discussed, he would vote for an increase of pay to pursers over the sums provided for by the amendment.

The House refused to concur in the amendment. The amendments concerning chaplains were also con. curred in.

The amendment concerning the professor of mathe matics was agreed to.

The next amendment, concerning sailing masters, was agreed to.

The next amendments, concerning midshipmen, were concurred in.

The next amendments, on the subject of clerks, were concurred in.

The next amendments, relating to the boatswains, gunners, sailmakers, and carpenters, were concurred in. of an assistant surgeon during an examination, was conThe next amendment, on the subject of the absence

curred in.

The next amendment, concerning the allowances to officers, was taken up.

On the question of concurrence there was some explanatory discussion between Mr. HARDIN and Mr. WATMOUGH, on the subject of the allowance of six. teen cents per mile for travel; Mr. H. contending that it had not been the practice to allow more than fifteen cents; and Mr. W. stating that the allowance was ne cessary.

Mr. REED moved to strike out the word "sixteen" and insert the word "ten."

Mr. WARD suggested "twelve," and the amend. ment was accepted as a modification.

H. OF R.]

ominous. It was, he believed, fair play, according to the ethics of legislative halls, to charge a bill, in its first stages, with as much odious and unpalatable matter as possible, with a view to secure its final rejection. He did not know but his colleague had become a convert to the bill; but he must, in candor, confess that he was a little jealous as to the motive that had induced him to support this proposition for extra allowance for special duties.

He did not think that the case which another of his honorable colleagues [Mr. BROWN] had put, was at all a fortunate one for the purpose for which it was ad duced. He had told us that midshipmen were frequently required to leave the navy yard at Brooklyn, and attend for a few days at the cannon foundry at West Point, and that they could not live there for less than two dollars per day. He would ask, whether they would not be obliged to pay for their own living when at the navy yard? Most surely. How, then, would the account of profit and loss stand, when sent on such an expedition? They would receive, for mileage, six dol lars for going up, and the same sum for returning, when the actual fare and expense of going up and returning would not exceed two dollars! Here, then, was a gain of ten dollars; and the idea, that it would cost one of these young gentlemen two dollars per day for living in the neighborhood of West Point, struck him as being somewhat strange. What! the price of living, in the rich and fruitful county of Orange, so exorbitantly high! He was well aware that there was a small portion of that wealthy and respectable district, which his friend so ably represented, so sterile that, if Nebuchadnezzar had been turned out there, he would have starved to death. (He meant the highlands.) But they included but a very small part of the gentleman's district. This was, perhaps, dwelling too long upon the case which the gentleman had put. He would only further observe that he expected that the officers of the navy should take a little of the bitter" with "the sweet," and that he would not, by authorizing these extra claims for special duties, expose them to the temptation of preferring claims that would induce uncharitable men to say that, what "they lose in dancing" they "make up by turning round." Pay them so much per year, and then the people will know exactly what they are paid.

Mr. MANN, of New York, said that his colleague was mistaken in supposing that, by supporting the bill in this particular, he wished to render it odious. That he was undisguisedly opposed to the bill, he readily admitted. He thought it quite possible, however, that it might become a law. With this belief, it was perhaps best, in order that the millions of public property which might in this way be confided to the officers should be properly taken care of, that some additional compensation should be given as an incentive to a correct discharge of that duty.

Mr. HARPER, of Pennsylvania, was in favor of having the law as definite as possible, and nothing left to the discretion of the Department. It was sometimes the practice, in order to get rid of an officer, or compel him to resign, to assign him extra duties and send him on an expensive agency, &c. He thought the House should guard the officers from this course of proceeding by the Department or the Government.

Various propositions of amendment were suggested; but, before any question was taken,

Mr. BOON said the House was thin, and there was

no likelihood that the bill would be disposed of at the present sitting. He therefore moved an adjournment; but withdrew the motion at the request of

Mr. HUBBARD, who asked the consent of the House to offer the following resolution:

Resolved, That the ladies be admitted to the privileged

[DEC. 30, 1834.

seats of the hall of the House of Representatives on Wednesday next.

Objection being made, Mr. HUBBARD moved to suspend the rule; which was agreed to: Yeas 109,

nays 18. The resolution was then submitted and agreed to. The House then adjourned.

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 30.

SURVEYOR GENERAL IN ILLINOIS. Mr. CASEY, from the Committee on the Public Lands, reported a bill providing for the establishment of a surveyor general's office in the State of Illinois; which was read twice.

Mr. CASEY stated that the establishment of a separate surveyor general's office for the State of Illinois was a matter of deep interest to the people of that State; he was therefore exceedingly anxious that the bill should be acted upon at the present session of Congress, and hoped that the House would permit the bill to be committed to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union; and accordingly made a motion to that effect; which motion was agreed to.

JUDICIAL DISTRICT IN FLORIDA.

Territories, reported a bill for the establishment of a Mr. CHILTON ALLAN, from the Committee on new judicial district in the Territory of Florida; which was read twice.

Mr. ALLAN moved that it be referred to the Committee of the Whole House, and made the order of the day for to-morrow.

Mr. WHITE, of Florida, said that the bill for estab lishing a new judicial district in Florida was one of so much importance to his constituents that he could not consent that it should be committed and made the order of the day for to-morrow, which is equivalent to laying it on the shelf with five hundred bills before it, for the session. It was true that these bills on the calendar cedence; yet as this is very pressing, the people of were reported before this, and have, by usage, the preAppalachicola being without courts, and subject to great trouble and confusion, he moved to make it the special order of the day for to-morrow week. If the people of Appalachicola were not remarkable for their orderly demeanor and sense of justice, the evils would have been much greater.

Mr. ALLAN having withdrawn his motion, the ques tion was put, and the bill made the special order for tomorrow week.

SPANISH TITLE BETWEEN THE SABINE AND RED RIVERS.

The following resolution, submitted yesterday by Mr. SEVIER, was taken up:

Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested (if not deemed incompatible with the public interest) to negotiate with Spain for her right and title to the country lying between the Sabine and Red rivers, in Arkansas Territory.

Mr. SEVIER said: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty perhaps offering that resolution. There is, sir, a considerable to explain to the House the object I have in view in tract of valuable country lying north of the Sabine and south of Red river, upon which many of our citizens have resided for years; a country of which we have had the undisturbed possession, and over which we still exercise jurisdiction, that will, in all probability, be lost to us for ever, if the boundary line designated by the treaty of 1819 between this Government and Spain should be permanently established. I believe Spain to be the rightful owner of this tract of country; and of that Government, I presume, we can obtain it for a mere

DEC. 30, 1834.}

trifle. It is true, Mexico claims this country; but I ask, what evidence has she of her title? Has she purchased it? Has she conquered it? No, she has done neither; and as well might her cupidity and arrogance lead her to set up a claim for Cuba, as for the tract of country in r question. Mexico never revolutionized the country north of the Sabine; she never marched a soldier into it; nor has she ever given a dollar for it. Our citizens have held the undisturbed possession of this country from 1806 down to the present day. It is true, we ceded it to Spain in 1819, for which she gave us the Floridas. Has Spain ever parted with her right acquired by that treaty? Has she ever sold it? Has it been taken from her? No, sir, she has not sold it, nor has Mexico ever taken it from her, or been in possession of it. Upon what technical, vain, and flimsy pretext is it, then, upon which she founds her claim to a country which she never acquired by arms, or treasure, or inheritance? Will any honorable gentleman be kind enough to inform me? Is it by discovery, backed by a bull from a Pope? A title thus acquired may have been good in the days of Cortes and Pizarro-it may yet be good where Indians alone are concerned; but I apprehend we are not prepared to recognise it as valid at this day in regard to ourselves. We, sir, have been for years negotiating with Mexico upon a subject about which we ought never to have negotiated; and, if I am correctly informed, we are still negotiating with her upon this same subject, when public policy and national dignity and justice should induce us to abandon it.

The conduct of Mexico in regard to this slip of country brings forcibly to my mind a scrap of ancient history. We have been informed that the Devil met our Saviour upon the Mount, and told him, if he would fall down and worship him, that he would give him the whole world. Now, I need not tell you, or the House, I presume, that his Satanic majesty had no world to give. So with Mexico. She has had her agents among our citizens, possessed of extensive grants to land bordering upon the very banks of Red river, for the purpose of bribing them to abjure their own country, and, by allegiance and expatriation, to become citizens of Mexico. These agents, to some extent, were successful. They induced, by their valuable bounties, some of our honest, hard-working, industrious citizens-citizens who were anxious to obtain land upon easy terms for themselves and children-to take the oath of allegiance to Mexico. They induced others to resist the execution of the civil authority of our country, and so prevalent was this spirit of resistance becoming, that the Governor of Arkansas, who chanced at that time to be in that part of the country, gave them a public address upon the impropriety of their conduct. He told them in his speech that the sheriff would be sustained in the execution of the civil authority of the country. He told them, if their resistance should produce a civil war, that they would be vanquished; and that, if taken in arms against their country, they would not be treated as prisoners of war, but hung up as traitors to their country. Now, sir, it is not for me to say what effect this speech had upon my constituents; but I can say, and do say it with great pleasure, that, at this time, all things are going on as they should go on.

I did not rise to make a long specch. I hope the resolution will be adopted.

Mr. J. Q. ADAMS, after calling for the reading of the resolution, remarked that it was one which the House ought not to adopt without mature deliberation. It would involve an admission, on the part of this Government, that Spain is interested in the Territory of Mexico, and imply a doubt whether the Government of Mexico was independent.

The resolution requested the President of the United

[H. OF R.

States to negotiate with Spain for a portion of this continent, where the title of Spain, as all the world knows, has long since ceased. In what a situation would this place the President? It called upon him to disacknowledge the Government of Mexico, and to recognise the right of Spain to a portion of the territory of Mexico. If we could acknowledge the right of Spain to any part of the territory, what would prevent us from acknowledging her right to the whole territory? He hoped that the gentleman would give a more explicit and satisfactory explanation of the object of the resolution, or that the resolution would be laid on the table. Mr. SEVIER said, in reply to Mr. ADAMS, that the gentleman seems to express some astonishment at my resolution, and thinks t highly improper to authorize the President to negotiate with Spain for the tract of country mentioned in the resolution, inasmuch as Spain owns no land upon the continent. The gentleman himself made the treaty of 1819, (or at least he has the credit of it in our country,) by which the country in question was given to Spain in part payment for the Floridas. Now, sir, allow me to ask the honorable gentleman to tell me when Spain parted with the title to the country he himself, on behalf of his Government, ceded to her? I want to know who bought it, or what Power took it from her. I state that she never parted with it that she never sold it-and that it never was taken from her by force. It is a country very desirable for us to own, and I suppose it can be had of her for "six and nine pence," or thereabouts. We have been pursuing towards Mexico a coaxing, scratching, tickling policy long enough. It is time to talk to her manfully; to tell her to confine herself to her lawful territory; to give up her preposterous claims to a country she does not own; and, above all, to cease tampering with our citizens, or else we will make her. Our partialities are all for Mexico, against Spain; and yet I must confess that I have yet to see any thing in the Government of that fickle, jealous, and bigoted Republic, in anywise calculated to excite either my love or admiration. I hope the resolution will not be laid upon the table.

Mr. ADAMS saw no reason, he said, for interrupting the negotiation which the gentleman acknowledged was going on with the Mexican Government in relation to this subject.

Mr. POLK wished, he said, to remark, in addition to what had fallen from the gentleman from Massachusetts, that it struck him as something very unusual for the House of Representatives, which constituted no part of the treaty-making power, to undertake to instruct the President to enter into a negotiation on so grave and important a question. He knew of nothing which should induce us to interfere with the pending negotiation, and he moved to lay the resolution on the table.

Mr. CAMBRELENG hoped, he said, that the gentleman would withdraw the motion to lay the resolution on the table, in order that we might reject it.

Mr. POLK accordingly withdrew his motion.

Mr. ARCHER concurred, he said, in the opinion that the resolution ought to be promptly and decisively rejected. It was a proposition to put an end to an important negotiation, and would frustrate the very object which the gentleman from Arkansas had in view. The reason of the delay of the negotiation with Mexico had been stated in the President's message. By adopting the resolution, we should give very just cause of offence to the Government of Mexico; for it affirmed, in effect, that Spain had still an interest in the territory of Mexico. Although we had recognised the independence of Mexico, yet, in adopting this resolution, we should vote it to be a dubious and disputed point whether Spain or Mexico owned the territory. Such an insult to the Government of Mexico would have the effect to determine the

negotiation, and to extinguish all hope of our acquiring the territory referred to. The gentleman from Arkansas, looking to the interests of that part of the country, ought to be the last man to propose such a course.

[DEC. 30, 1834.

sum for his services than was allowed by law. He hoped the clause would be retained.

The question was then taken, and the amendment was rejected.

some explanations, was agreed to.

On motion of Mr. BRIGGS, the amendment was further amended by providing an allowance of two dollars a day to officers detained at courts martial, and employed in the survey of coasts.

Mr. SEVIER said he had no idea that his resolution would have met with such opposition from so many quarters of the House. The gentlemen seem to suppose my resolution very unusual and extraordinary; that I am for taking of Mexico lands to which her right is undoubted; and, lastly, that it may produce much mischief, and no possible good. My object is not to produce mischief, or to embarrass the administration, or to take of Mexico one inch of ground which belongs to her. And, as such results seem to be apprehended by my friends, I will withdraw the resolution; but, in doing this, let it be distinctly understood that it is not because I am in favor of settling the slip of country with free blacks. We have difficulties enough already with our runaway slaves, and I am not disposed to increase those difficulties, by affording them a safer and more secure retreat. I withdraw the resolution.

PAY OF THE OFFICERS OF THE NAVY. The House resumed the consideration of the bill to equalize and regulate the pay of the officers of the navy, as reported from the Committee of the Whole, the question being on the amendment proposed by Mr. FILLMORE, of New York, to strike out the words making an allowance for detention and employment on special service."

Mr. MINER, of Connecticut, entirely accorded, he said, with the idea that as little discretion should be allowed to the Department in fixing the compensation of officers of the navy as was consistent with justice and equity. But it was impossible to do justice to them by putting down the exact sum which each should receive for his services. Though he was not acquainted with the technical meaning of the term "special service," yet it was very apparent to him that there might be special services which would be attended with extraordinary expenses to the officers detailed for their discharge. If one officer is charged with a duty which involves extra expense, and another with a duty attended with no extra expense, it could not be said that the same pay would be an equal and fair compensation to both. This would break in upon the principle of equality and graduation proposed by the bill. He thought it proper that officers detailed on special service should receive an extra compensation, not exceeding the amount of the extra expenses incurred by them in performing the service; for he fully accorded in the principle that the Government was entitled to the services and the whole services officer, and that he should not receive any larger

The entire amendment, as modified, was then concurred in.

The next amendment, in the last clause of section 2d, striking out "relatives," and inserting "widowed mothers and unmarried sisters," was taken up.

[The 2d section, as reported by the Committee of the Whole, is as follows:

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That the Secretary of the Treasury shall be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to deduct from the pay hereafter to become due of the commission and warrant officers of the navy of the United States, three per centum of the amount thereof, and to pay the same to the Secretary of the Navy and the navy commissioners for the time being, who are hereby appointed a board of commissioners, by the name and style of "commissioners of the navy widows' and orphans' fund;" which, together with any other moneys to which the fund may become legally entitled, shall constitute a fund for the relief of the widows, chil dren, and widowed mothers and unmarried sisters of the said commission and warrant officers of the navy of the United States, to be invested by said board, and the proceeds of it divided and disbursed in such manner as may be hereafter prescribed by Congress.]

Mr. WISE moved to amend the amendment by insert ing, "when no widows and children, then to widowed mothers," leaving out the words " unmarried sisters."

Mr. CAMBRELENG supported the motion. As administrators of the navy fund, we ought, he said, to be governed by the pension rules. He had known no case in which pensions had been allowed to the sisters, and of very few in which they were given to mothers. The fund was intended for the widows and children of deceased officers.

After some further conversation on the subject between Messrs. REED, MCKENNAN, CAMBRELENG, and WISE, the motion of Mr. WISE was rejected.

The amendment of the committee was then concur red in.

The following amendment to the third section, reported by the Committee of the Whole, was then taken up for consideration:

"That, from and after the passage of this act, the distribution of prize money to the officers, seamen, and marines, of the navy of the United States, shall be in proportion to the pay which said officers, seamen, and marines, shall respectively receive."

Mr. WISE said that the seamen employed in the na vy received more pay in money than the marines; and contended that, should the amendment now proposed be adopted, the contrary would be the effect. Mr. W. proposed a modification of the amendment, as follows: "Provided, That in estimating the pay of marines, the value of clothing furnished them, as part of their com pensation, shall be included."

Which Mr. JARVIS accepted.

section involved a very important consideration, in re Mr. HARPER, of Pennsylvania, observed that the gard to the distribution of prize money. The marines