Tennessee Lands-Plurality of Offices.

APRIL, 1806.

Plurality of Offices.

H. OF R.

cide whether he will vacate his military command by holding or accepting a civil office; the Exec. utive will have the same right to appoint-the individual will have the same right to accept the civil office as heretofore, but the acceptance vacates his command in the Army or Navy. If, then, the Executive right to appoint, and the right of the officer to accept, remains after the passage of this law, how can gentlemen contend that the Constitutional right of appointment is narrowed? All the difficulty on the present occasion arises from the law being made to bear on the Constitutional right of appointment. It is intended to operate only on offices in the Army or Navy which are created by law, to the tenure of which we may annex such conditions as the public good may require. Under the Constitution we have a right to prescribe rules for the government of the Army or Navy. In passing this law we add a new clause to the articles of war, viz: That an officer of the Army or Navy shall not hold or accept a civil office. Do gentlemen really suppose that we have no right to make this rule? If we can say that an officer shall not get drunk, that he shall have short hair, a coat of a certain form; that he shall not absent himself from his duty; or if we can in fact annex any other condition calculated to insure to the public his services, why may we not declare by law that he shall not hold or accept a civil office, he shall forfeit his military command? The public welfare is the basis of the rules for the government of the Army and Navy; we have a right to prescribe such rules as the public good requires, and it is our duty to establish such as will insure to us the services of our military officers in that station to which they are appointed.

ernment, and might in the course of time be a powerful engine in the hands of the Executive. He wished, therefore, for a separation of the civil and military powers which might arise under it. Mr. SMILIE said if the question was what was most convenient or best, he should have no difficulty in agreeing with the gentleman from Massachusetts. But it rested on higher ground-on what was Constitutional. If he had a right to make the Constitution, he would have no hesitation in separating the civil and military powers. But he could not forget the occurrences which had taken place in the State he had the honor to represent in part. In that State there had been but a single branch of the Legislature without any Executive veto on the passage of the laws. He had seen that Government destroyed by sweeping away the Executive power before the irresistible authority of the Legislature, and he had seen the people obliged, from this circumstance, o give up that constitution and frame a new one. The measure under consideration was of the same kind. The Constitutional powers of the Executive ought not to be encroached upon, unless the object was to produce confusion. He had seen the effects of such measures, and deprecated them. You may, said Mr. S., abolish the office, and the officer falls with it, but in no other way, while the office continues, can you remove the officer except by impeachment. Shall we, then, in order to get rid of a man who may not have done right (and as for myself I am ready to answer I have no affection for the man) go into a new scene, the length of which we cannot foresee? This principle once established may lead to anything; it may lead to a destruction of the powers of the Executive altogether. I am as tenacious of the powers of the Legislature as But we are told we are about to remove from any man, but I believe the powers of the Execu- office a civil officer by law. The gentleman from tive to be equally necessary. Indeed I think there Pennsylvania has read the clause of the Constiis more danger to be apprehended from the over-tution which provides for the removal of civil whelming power of the Legislature, than from officers by impeachment. This law is not to opethe powers of the Executive. For the Legisla-rate on civil but on military officers; civil officers, ture is so powerful that there can be little danger of the Executive encroaching upon it.

Mr. EPPES. If I took the same view of the operation of this law with the gentleman from Pennsylvania, I should certainly give it my negative. As, however, I voted for the resolution on which it is founded, and consider the law in conformity with the resolution, I will assign, in a few words, the reasons which will govern my

vote.

We have been told that all the departments of Government are independent of each other. No man denies the correctness of this principle. Let us not interfere with the Constitutional rights of the other departments. nor abandon our own. The Executive has by the Constitution the right of nominating for office any citizen of the United States, whether an officer of the Army and Navy, or not. This being a Constitutional right, he certainly cannot be deprived of it by law; the right remains, and may be exercised if the law passes; the law merely severs the civil and military offices, and leaves the military officer to de

it is true, are removed by impeachment-military officers by such forms as we think proper to prescribe by law; the operation of this law will be precisely the same with any other new rule prescribed for the government of the Army or Navy. Suppose we were to pass a law that any officer found drunk after the 1st of July next shall forfeit his office-his having been drunk before would not subject him to the penalty of the law-but his being drunk after the first of July next would deprive him of his office. Apply this to the case of a civil officer. An officer of the Army or Navy having accepted a civil office, or holding a civil office, does not at present vacate his military office; the reason is obvious-there is no law against it. If, however, after the first of July next, he accepts or continues to hold a civil office, he forfeits his military command under the new article of war which this law establishes. The law severs the two offices, declares them incompatible with each other, and leaves the individual free to make his election. As to the general principle that the civil and military ought to be sep

amendments of the Senate to the bill making appropriations for the support of Government, for the year one thousand eight hundred and six, made a report thereon: Whereupon,

Resolved, That this House do agree to the first

Mr. STANFORD supported, and Messrs. FIND. LEY and SLOAN opposed the bill; when the ques-of the said amendments. tion was taken by yeas and nays on the passage of the bill-yeas 64, nays 34. as follows:

YEAS-Willis Alston, Isaac Anderson, Burwell Bassett, George M. Bedinger, Silas Betton, John Blake, jr., Thomas Blount, William Butler, Levi Casey, John Claiborne, Christopher Clark, Joseph Clay, Matthew Clay, John Dawson, Elias Earle, Peter Early, James Elliot, Caleb Ellis, William Ely, John W. Eppes, James M. Garnett, Peterson Goodwyn, Edwin Gray, Seth Hastings, David Holmes, John G. Jackson, Walter Jones, Michael Lieb, Matthew Lyon, Duncan McFarland, Robert Marion, Josiah Masters, Nicholas R. Moore, Thomas Moore, Jeremiah Morrow, John Morrow, Gurdon S. Mumford, Thomas Newton, jr., Gideon Olin, Josiah Quincy, John Randolph, Thomas M. Randoph, John Rea of Pennsylvania, Jacob Richards, Thomas Sammons, Thomas Sandford, Martin G. Schuneman, John Cotton Smith, John Smith, Samuel Smith, Thomas Spalding, Richard Stanford, Lewis B. Sturges, Samuel Taggart, Benjamin Tallmadge, Philip R. Thompson, Thomas W. Thompson, Uri Tracy, Abram Trigg, Robert Whitehill, David R. Williams, Alexander Wilson, Richard Winn, and Joseph Winston.

NAYS-David Bard, Joseph Barker, Barnabas Bidwell John Chandler, Jacob Crowninshield, Richard Cutts, Ezra Darby, Ebenezer Elmer, William Findley, John Fowler, Andrew Gregg, Isaiah L. Green, James Kelly, William McCreery, Jeremiah Nelson, Timothy Pitkin, jr., John Pugh, John Rea of Tennessee, John Russell, Peter Sailly, Ebenezer Seaver, James Sloan, John Smilie, Henry Southard, Joseph Stanton, David Thomas, Philip Van Cortlandt, Killian K. Van Rensselaer, Joseph B. Varnum, Peleg Wadsworth, John Whitehill, Eliphalet Wickes, Marmaduke Williams, and Nathan Williams.

PUBLIC DEBT.

Mr. J. RANDOLPH, from the committee of conference, appointed on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses to the act to repeal so much of any act or acts, as authorize the receipt of evidences of the public debt, in payment for lands of the United States; and for other purposes relative to the public debt-made a report.

The House took up this report, which recommended to the House the receding from their amendment, to strike out that part of the original bill which authorized the appointment of an agent, with power to make purchases of the public debt by open purchase, and allowing him one quarter of one per cent. on all purchases made by him.

A short debate took place on receding-Messrs. J. CLAY, and QUINCY supported; and Mr. J. C. SMITH opposed receding which was disagreed to-yeas 35, nays 38.

When, on motion of Mr. J. RANDOLPH, the House resolved to insist on their amendment.

Resolved, That this House doth disagree to all other of the said amendments, and desire a conference with the Senate on the subject-matter thereof; and do appoint Mr. JOSEPH CLAY, Mr. MOSELY, and Mr. ROGER NELSON, managers at the said conference, on their part.

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill making further appropriation towards completing the south wing of the Capitol, at the City of Washington. The bill was reported with an amendment thereto; which was twice read, and agreed to by the House.

Ordered, That the said bill, with the amendment, be engrossed, and read the third time to-day. The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill sent from the Senate, entitled "An act for the relief of Gilbert C. Russell." The bill was reported without amendment, and read the third time, and passed.

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill making appropriations for carrying into effect certain Indian treaties. The bill was reported without amendment, and ordered to be engrossed, and read the third time on Monday next.

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill making appropriations for carrying into effect a treaty between the United States and the Chickasaw tribe of Indians. The bill was reported with several amendments thereto; which were severally twice read, and agreed to by the House.

Ordered, That the said bill, with the amendments, be engrossed, and read the third time on Monday next.

the Whole on the bill respecting the claims to The House resolved itself into a Committee of land in the Indiana Territory, and State of Obio. The bill was reported with several amendments thereto; which were severally twice read, and agreed to by the House.

ments, be engrossed, and read the third time on Ordered, That the said bill, with the amendMonday next.

wards completing the south wing of the Capitol, An engrossed bill making further provision toat the City of Washington, was read the third time, and passed.

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the bill to suspend the sale of certain lands in the State of Ohio and Indiana Territory.

The bill suspends the sale of lands on which instalments are due, until the first of October next. A motion of Mr. LYON to extend the time till February the first, was lost.

The Committee rose, and reported the bill without amendment, which was read a third time and passed-yeas 66.

Protection of Merchant Vessels-Naval Appropriations.

curred out of the contingent fund? If it is not, it is not authorized by law. Mr. L. said, he did not know that he should make any objection to this item; but he thought it full time to check this loose mode of procedure.

APRIL, 1806.

partment all it asked, but fix a particular sum to each item. He held, he said, the report of the Secretary of the Navy in his hand, and if he was disposed to be ill-natured, he could make a handle of it. But his opposition was to the system, not to the man; for, if he was correctly informed, the motives on which the gentleman went into office were honorable to him. To gain his object he would move to strike out this provision.

that the deficiency should be made up from the surplus of another.

Mr. DANA said, this amendment was warranted by the former usage of the House, and the message of the President of the United States. At the first session of the seventh Congress the President had observed that—

Mr. R. NELSON said, he did not understand the force of the reasoning of the gentlemen from South Carolina and Pennsylvania. Both had made a great show of liberality, by saying they would not oppose this particular appropriation, Mr. CONRAD Opposed the motion, and remarked at the same that they condemned the course of that the expenditure under one item might fall proceeding, and represented the country as cry-short of the sum appropriated, which would require ing aloud at this kind of expenditure, before an appropriation was made to cover it. He believed, however, that it was almost next to impossible that the money should be misapplied. The estimates were made, the money appropriated; and when, in the application of it, either from the rise of materials, or other unexpected circumstances, they found a particular object unfinished, was "In our care, too, of the public contributions entrusted it right to suffer it to be exposed to the weather, to our direction, it would be prudent to multiply barriers and not done for the want af a few thousand against their dissipation, by appropriating specific sums dollars; and like a young spendthrift, only half to every specific purpose susceptible of definition; by build his house, and let it fall in ruins? Mr. N. disallowing all applications of money, varying from the said, he should rather suppose the gentleman de-appropriation in object, or transcending it in amount, by served credit for asking a less sum than was necessary, and trusting to the honor of Congress to supply any deficiency that might arise.

It had been inquired, if the expense of this building was not paid out of the contingent fund? Mr. N. said, he did not know how this was; but he did know that a great part of the work had been done by the soldiery; and for that he thought the officer deserved the applause of the House and the public, instead of their censure.

reducing the undefined field of contingencies, and thereby circumscribing discretionary powers over money."

This opinion had been given five years ago; and they might now infer that it had been found that it could not be carried into effect, as to the military or naval service. Mr. D. said, he considered the gentleman from South Carolina as bringing up this question directly before the House: Will you adhere to specific appropriations, or will you abandon them? Mr. D. said, he had never been in favor of them in relation to the Navy or Army.

Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS said, he had not dropt any such expression as had been intimated. He had felt no censure; he had expressed none. If he Mr. R. NELSON said that, like the gentleman had expressed any opinion of this officer, it was from South Carolina, he had been very early in that this sum had been economically expended. favor of specific appropriations. The message He observed that much noise had been hereto- which had been read, was founded in good sense, fore made about expenses incurred before an ap- and met his approbation; but it had never been propriation for them; and he was much mista-intended to apply the recommendations it conken if the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. NEL-tained to such a case as this; and it was totally SON) had not assisted in making it.

impossible to make the navy efficient if such a Mr. DANA said, he was in favor of this appro- specification were to be made. Did the gentlepriation. But he believed the gentleman from man know how the accounts of the public vessels South Carolina was correct in saying that much at a distance were kept? He had gained some noise had heretofore been made about adhering information on this point from navy men. The to specific appropriations. He had, however, never vessels in the Mediterranean were exposed to vahad much faith in this doctrine. And as to the rious expenses. The captain drew a bill on the Navy, especially, he believed the thing was unat- navy agent in London, or at some other place. tainable; and less money was required for gen- This was sent to the Secretary of the Navy, who eral than for specific appropriations. He believ-did not know for what the amount had been exed, however, that there need not be much talk on this appropriation, when they had recently made an appropriation of two millions of dollars without any specification of the object.

The question was then put, and the motion of Mr. J. CLAY was agreed to without a division.

Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS said, he wished so to modify that part of the bill which appropriated four hundred and eleven thousand nine hundred and fifty dollars "for repair of vessels, store rent, pay of armorers, freight, and other contingent expenses," as to separate the items; to give the De

pended, till the vessel returned to the United States, when the account was settled. So that it was impossible for them, sitting here in Washington, to tell for what the amounts of these bills had been expended. If they appropriated specifically for every object of expenditure, the over sum for each object must lie, although wanted for another object, for which a sufficient sum had not been appropriated. Thus much, required to be done, must remain undone; for, although money enough might have been appropriated, it could not be got at for the purpose for which it