Alexandria gazette. [volume], June 11, 1834, Image 2

About Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974

Image provided by: Library of Virginia; Richmond, VA

                
urn Mil I m jpppw- - m-w '2
THE GAZETTE.
By EDGAR SNOWDEN._
Terms.
Daily paper - - - - S9 per annum.
Country paper - - - 5 per annum.
The ALEXANDRIA GAZETTE forthe coun
try is printed on Tuesday, Thursday, and |
Saturday.
All advertisements appear in both papers, and j
are inserted at the usual rates.
MR. WEBSTER’S SPEECH.—[Conclcded.1
The first proposition which the protest asserts, |
in regard to the President’s powers, as Execu
tive Magistrate, is, that the general duty being j
imposed on him by the constitution, of taking
care that the laws be faithfully executed, he there•
by becomes responsible for the cotiduct of every
person employed in the Government; u forthe en
tire action,” as the paper expresses it, “ of the
executive department.” This, sir, is very dan
gerous logic. I reject the inference altogether.
No such responsibility, nor any thing like it,
follows from the general provision of the Consti
tution, making it his duty to see the laws execu
ted. If it did, we should have, in fact, but one
officer in the whole Government. Having thus
assumed for the President the entire responsibil
ity of the whole Government the protest advan
ces boldly to its conclusion, and claims, at once,
absolute power over all individuals in office, as
being merely the President’s agents. This is
the lauguag: “ The whole executive power be
4 ing vested in the President, who is responsible
‘ for its exercise, it is a necessary consequence
4 that he should have a right to employ agents of
4 his own choice, to aid him in the performance
‘of his duties, and to discharge them when he
4 is ho longer willing to be responsible for their
4 acts.”
This sir, completes the work. This hand
somely rounds off the whole executive system
of executive authority. First, the President has
the whole responsibility and then being thus
•AAnnnfiKla »• nil ho hac onrl mirrhf tn hat’P
the whole power. We have heard of poli
tical units, and our American Executive,
as here represented, is, indeed, a unit. We
have a charmingly simple Government! In
stead of many officers in different departments,
each having appropriate duties, and each res
ponsible for his own duties, we are so fortunate
as to have to deal with but one officer. The
President carries on the Government; all the
rest are but sub-contractors. Sir, whatever
name we give him, we have but ONE EXEC
UTIVE OFFICER. A Briareus sits in the
centre of our system, and with his hundred
hands touches every thing, moves every thing,
, controls every thing. I ask, sir, is this republi
canism? is this a Government of laws? is this
legal responsibility?
According to ffie protest, the very duties,
which every officer under the Government per
forms, are the duties of the President himself.
It says that the President has a right to employ
agents of his own choice, to aid him in the per
formance of his duties.
Mr. President, if these doctrines be true, it is
idle for U3 any longer to talk about any such
thing as a government of laws. We have no
government of laws, not even the semblance or
shadow of it; we have no legal responsibility.
We have an Executive, consisting of one per
son, wielding all official power, and which is, to
every effectual purpose, completely irresponsi
ble. The President declares that he is “ res
ponsible for the entire action of the executive
department.” Responsible? What does lie
mean by being “ responsible?” Docs he mean
legal responsibility? Certainly not. NTo such
thing. Legal responsibility sgnifies liability to
punishment for misconduct or maladministra
tion But the protest does not mean that the
President is liable to be impeached and punish
ed, if a Secretary of State should commit trea
son, if a collector of the customs should be
guilty of bribery, or if a Treasurer should em
bezzle the public money. It does not mean,
that he should be answerable for any such
crime, or such delinquency. What, then, is its
notion of that responsibility, which it says the
President is under for all officers, and which
authorizes him to consider all officers as his
own personal agents? Sir, it is a mere li
ability to be blamed; it is the chance of becom
ing unpopular, the danger of losing a re-elec
tion. - It is the hazard of failing in any attempt
or enterprise of ambition. This is all the res
ponsibility to which the doctrines of the protest
hold the President subject.
It is precisely the responsibility under which
Cromwell acted, when he dispersed Parliament,
telling its members not in so many words,indeed,
that they disobeyed the will of their constitu
ents, but telling them that the People were sick
of them, and that he drove them out “ for the
glory of God, and the good of the nation.” It
is precisely the responsibility upon which Bona
parte broke up the popular assembly of France.
1 do not mean, sir, certainly, by these illustra
tions, to insinuate designs of violent usurpa
tions against the President: far from it: but I-do
mean to maintain that such responsibility as
that with which the protest clothes him, is no
* responsibility, no constitutional responsibility,
L no republican responsibility; but a mere liabili
ty to loss of office, loss of character, and loss
of fame, if he shall choose to violate the laws,
| ^ and overturn the liberties of the country. It is
such a responsibility as leaves every thing in
his discretion, and his pleasure.
Sir, it exceeds human belief that any man
should put sentiments, such as this paper con
tains, into a public communication from the
President to the Senate. They are sentiments
which give us all one master. The protest as
serts an absolute right to remove all persons
from office, at pleasure; and for what reason?—
Because they are incompetent? Because they
aie incapable? Because they are remiss, neg
ligent, or inattentive? No, sir, these are not the
reasons. But he may discharge them, one and
all. simply because u he is no longer willing to
be responsible for their acts!” It insists on an
absolute right in the President to direct and con
trol every act of every officer of the Govern
ment, except the judges. It asserts this right
of direct control over and over again. The
President may go into the Treasury, among the
auditors and comptrollers, and direct them how
to settle every man’s account; what abatements!
to make from one, what additions to another.— I
He may go into the custom house, among col
lectors and appraisers, and may control es
timates, reductions and appraisements. Iti
is true, that these officers are sworn to dis
charge the duties of their respective offices 1
honestly and fairly, according to their own j
pest abilities; it is true, that many of them are !
uaDle to indictment for official misconduct,
?IldnomfLLresp?nsible? in suits of individuals,
innrfnPt15^rnvdJF?alt5e8> *f SUCh °fficial ™iS
conduct be proved; but notwithstanding all this,
the protest avers that an these officers® are but
the President's agents; that they are but aiding
him in the discharge of his duties; that he is re
sponsible for their conduct, and that they are
removable at his will and pleasure. And it is
under this view of his own authority, that the
President calls the secretaries his secretaries,
not once only, but repeatedly. After half a
century’s administration of this Government;
sir, after we have endeavored by statute upon
statute, and by provision following provision,
to define and limit official authority; to assign'
particular duties; to create penalties for their
violation; to adjust accurately the responsibili
ty of each agent, with his own powers and his
own duties; to establish the prevalence of equal
rule; to make the law, as far as possible, every
thing, and individual will, as far as possible, no
thing; after all this, the astounding assertion
rings in our ears, that, throughout the whole
range of official agency, in its smallest ramifi
cations, as well as in larger masses, there is but
ONE RESPONSIBILITY, ONE DISCRETION, ONE WILL!
True, indeed, is it, sir, if these sentiments be
maintained, true, indeed, is it, that the Presi
dent of the United States may well repeat, from
Napoleon, what he repeated from Louis the
14th, “ I am the State.”
Mr. President, in one of the French come
dies, as you know, in which the dullness and
prolixity of legal argument is intended to be
severely satirized, while the advocate is tedi
ously groping among ancient lore, having noth
ing to do with the case, the judge grows impa
tient, and at last cries out to him to come down
to the flood! I really wish, sir, that the writer of
this protest, since he was discussing matters of
the highest importance to us as Americans, and
which arise out of our own peculiar Constitu
tion, had kept himself, not only on this side
the general deluge, but also on this side of the
Atlantic. 1 desire that all the broad waves of
that wide sea should continue to roll between us
and the influence of those foreign principles
and foreign precedents, which he so eagerly
adopts.
In asserting power for an American President,
I prefer he should attempt to maintain his asser
tions on American reasons. I know not, sir,
who the writer was, (I wish I did;) but whoever
he was, it is manifest that he argues this part of
i • . t i . .i ; : _ 1 . 1-*
uii* trtsc, imuu^iiuia, uu uic pi wiwipics ui tue
Constitution of England. It is true, that in
England the King is regarded as the original
fountain of all honor and all office; and that
anciently, indeed, he possessed all political
power of every kind. It is true that this mass
of authority, in history of that Government,
has been diminished, restraind and controlled
by charters, by immunities, by grants and by
various modifications, which the friends of li
berty have, at different periods, been able to
obtain or to impose. All liberty, as we know,
all proper privileges, as, indeed, the word it
self imports, were formerly considered as favors
and concessions from the monarch. But when
ever and wherever civil freedom could get a
foothold, and could maintain itself, these favors
were turned into rights. Before and during
the reigns ol the princes of the Stuart family,
they were acknowledged only as favors or pri
vileges, graciously allowed, although even then,
whenever opportunity offered, as in the in
stance to which I alluded just now, they were
contended for as rights; and by the revolution
of 16S8, they were acknowledged as rights in
England, by the prince who then ascended the
throne, and as the condition on which he was
allowed to sit upon it. But, with us, there never
was a time when we acknowledged original,
unrestrained, sovereign power over us. Our
Constitutions are not made to limit and restrain
pre-existing authority. They are the instru
ments by which the people confer power on
their own servants. If I may use a legal phrase,
the people are grantors. They give to the Go
vernment, and to each branch of it, all the
power it possesses, or can possess; and what is
not given, they retain. In England, before her
revolution, and in the rest of Europe since, if
we would know the extent of liberty or popular
right, we must go to grants, to charters, to allow
ances, and indulgencies. But, with us, we go
to constitutions to learn the extent of the pow
ers of Government. No political power is more
original than theConstitution; none is possessed
which is not there granted; and the grant, and
the limitations in the grant, are in the same in
strument.
The powers, therefore, belonging to any
branch of our Government, are to be construed
and settled, not by remote analogies, drawn
from other Governments, but from the words of
me gram useir, in meir plain sense ana neces
sary import, and according to an interpretation
consistent with our own history, and the spirit
of our own institutions. And 1 will never agree
that a President of the United States holds the
whole undivided power of office in his own
hands, upon the theory that he is responsible
for the entire action of the whole body of those
engaged in carrying on the Government, and
executing the laws. Such a responsibility is
purely ideal, delusive, and vain. There is, there
can be, no substantial responsibility, any farther
than every individual is answerable, not merely
in his reputation, not merely in the opinion of
mankind, but to the law, for the faithful dis
charge of his own appropriate duties. Again
and again we hear it said that the President is
responsible to tiie American people! That he is
responsible to the bar of public opinion! For
whatever he does, he assumes accountability to
the American people! For whatever he omits,
he expects to be brought to the high bar of pub
lic opinion! And this is thought enough for a
limited, restrained, republican Government! An
undefined, undefinable, ideal responsibility to
the public judgment! Sir, ifAall this mean any
thing, if it be not empty sound, it means no less
than that the President may do any thing and
everything which he may expect to be tolerat
ed in doing. He may go just so far as he thinks
it safe to go; and Cromwell and Bonaparte
went no farther. I ask again, sir, is this legal
responsibilty? Is this the true nature of a Go
vernment with witten laws and limited powers?
And allow me, sir, to ask, too, if an Executive
Magistrate, while professing to act under the
constitution, is restrained only by this responsi
bility to public opinion, what prevents him, on
the same responsibility, from proposing a
change in that constitution? Why may he not
say, “I am about to introduce new forms, new
principles, and with a new spirit; I am about to
try a political experiment, on a great scale; and
when I get through with it, I shall be responsi
ble to the American people, I shall be answer
able to the bar of public opinion?”
Connected, sir, with the idea of this airy and
unreal responsibility to the public, is another sen
timent, which, of late, we hear frequently expres
sed; and that is, that the President is the direct
representative of the American People. This is
declared in the Protestin so many words: “ The
President,” says the Protest, “ is the direct Re
presentative of the American People ” Now
sir, this is not the language of the Constitution’
The Constitution no where calls him the repre
sentative of the American People, still less their
direct representative. It could not do so with
the least propriety. He is not chosen directly
by the People, but by a body of electors, some
of whom are chosen by the People, and some of
whom are appointed by the State Legislatures.
Where, then, is the authority for saying that the
President is the direct representative of the Peo
ple” The Constitution calls the members of
the other House, Representatives, and declares
that they shall be chosen by the People; and
there are no other direct or immediate repre
sentatives of the People in this Government.—
The Constitution denominates the President
simply the President of the United States: it
points out the complex mode of electing him,
defines his powers and duties, and imposes li
mits and restraints on his authority. With these
powers and duties, and under these restraints
he becomes, when chosen, President of the Uni
ted States. That is his character, and the de
nomination of his office. How is it, then, that,
on this official character, thus cautiously creat
ed, limited, and defined, he is to engraft another,
and a very imposing character, viz: the charac
ter of the direct representative of the American
People? 1 hold this, sir, to be mere assumption,
and dangerous assumption. If he is the repre
sentative of all the American People, he is the
only representative which they ail have. No
body else presumes to represent all the People.
And if he may be allowed to consider himself as
the sole representative of all the American
People, and is to act under no other responsibi
lity than such as I have already described, then,
Isay, sir, that the Government (I will not say
the People) has already a master. I deny the
sentiment, therefore, and I protest against the
language; neither the sentiment nor the lan
guage is to be found in the Constitution of the
country; and whosoever is not satisfied to de
scribe the powers of the President in the lan
guage of the Constitution, may he justly suspect
ed of being as little satisfied with the powers
themselves. The President is President. His
office and his name of office are known, and
both are fixed and described by law. Being
commander of the army and navy, holding the
power »f nominating to office and removing
from office, and being, by these powers, the
fountain of all patronage and all favor, what
does he not become if lie be allowed to super
add to all this, the character of simile reore
sentative of the American People? Sir, he be
comes, what America has not been accustomed
to see, what this Constitution has never creat
ed, and what I cannot contemplate but with
profound alarm. He who may call himself the
single representative of a nation, may speak in
the name of the nation; may undertake to wield
the power of the nation; and who shall gainsay
him, in whatsoever he chooses to pronounce as
the nation’s will?
I will now, sir, ask leave to recapitulate the
general doctrines of this Protest, and to present
them together. They are—
That neither branch of the Legislature can
take up, or consider, for the purpose of censure,
any official act of the President, without some
view to legislation or impeachment;
That not only the passage, but the discussion
of the resolution of the Senate of the 28th of
March, was unauthorized by the Constitution,
and repugnant to its provisions;
That the custody of the public treasury always
must be entrusted to the Executive; that Con
gress cannot take it out of his hands, nor
place it any where, except with such super
intendents and keepers as are appointed by
him, responsible to him, and removeuble at his
will;
That the whole Executive power is in the
President, and that, therefore, the duty of de
fending the integrity of the Constitution results
to him from the very nature of his office; and
that the founders of our Republic have attested
their sense of the importance of this duty, and
by expressing it in his official oath, have given
to it peculiar solemnity and force;
That, as he is to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed, lie is thereby made respon
sible for the entire action of the Executive de
partment, with power of appointing, overseeing,
and controlling those who execute the laws.
That the power of removal from office, like
that of appointment, is an original Executive
power, and is left in his hands, unchecked by the
Constitution, except in the cases of judges; that,
being responsible for the exercise of the whole
Executive power, he lias a right to employ
agents of his own choice, to assist him in the
performance of hit duties, and to discharge them
when he is no longer willing to be responsible
for their acts;
That the Secretaries are his Secretaries and
all persons appointed to offices created by law,
except the judges, his agents, responsible to him,
and removable at his pleasure;
And. finally, that lie is the direct representa
tive of the American people.
These, sir, are some of the leading proposi
tions contained in the protest; and if they be
true, then the Government under which we live
is an elective monarchy. It is not yet absolute;
there are yet some checks and limitations in the
Constitution and laws; but in its essential and
prevailing character it is an elective monarchy.
Mr. President, I have spoken freely of this
protest, and of the doctrines which it advances;
but I have said nothing which I do not believe.
On these high questions of Constitutional law,
respect for my own character, as well as a so
lemn and profound sense of duty, restrains me
from giving utterance to a single sentiment
which does not flow from entire conviction. I
feel that I am not wrong. I feel that an inborn
and inbred love of Constitutional liberty, and
some study of our political institutions, have
not, on this occasion, misled me. But I have
desired to say nothing that should give pain to
the Chief Magistrate personally. I have not
sought to fix arrows in his breast; but I believe
him mistaken, altogether mistaken, in the senti
ments which he has expressed; and I must con
cur with others in placing on the records of the
Senate my disapprobation of those sentiments.
On a vote, which is to remain so long as any
proceeding of the Senate shall last, and on a 1
question which can never cease to be important
while the Constitution of the country endures, '
I have desired to make public my reasons.—
They will now be known, and I submit them to
the judgment of the present and of after times.
Sir, the occasion is full of interest. It cannot
pass off without leaving strong impressions on
the character of public men. A collision has
taken place, which I could have most anxious
ly wished to avoid; but it was not to be shun- ■
ned. We have not sought this controversy; it ;
has met us, and been forced upon us. In my (
judgment, the law has been disregarded, and
the Constitution transgressed; the fortress of li
berty has been assaulted, and circumstances
have placed the Senate in the breach; and, al
though we may perish in it, I know we shall not .
fly from it. But I am fearless of consequences. \
We shall hold on sir, and hold out, till the Peo- .
pie themselves come to,its defence. We shall !
raise the alarm, and maintain the post, till they, ]
whose right it is, shall decide whether the Se- i
nate be a faction, wantonly resisting unlawful
power, or whether it be opposing, with firmness
and patriotism, violations of liberty and inroads
upon the Constitution. ! 1
THE LOTTERY TICKET. ,
* * * After a transient refreshment, the
party seemed more familiarized to each other,
and even Seville himself condescended from
his stilts, and joined in the conversation; the
melancholy man in the left-hand corner unbent
his brow, and added his mite to the verbal con
tribution of his companions, till at length the
subject of lotteries was started by the winkle
keeper, who declared an opinion- that nobody
ever got a prize.
This statement was stoutly contradicted by
the melancholy man, 'who seemed to derive a
vast reinforcement of animation from the sub
ject. He enumerated dukes, members of Par
liament, Hampshire squires, Bloomsbury attor
neys, and Pall Mall pastry cooks, who had, all
to his own knowledge, been splendidly and
sudddenly enriched by the acquisition of large
sums.
‘Indeed, sir,’said he, ‘ even I myself might
have been worth thirty thouand prounds more
than I am at this present moment, by the same
means, if it had not been for accidental cir
cumstances over which I had no control.’
‘ What might that have been?’said the win
kle man: “ choosing the wrong number per
haps?’
‘Not so, sir,’ said the melancholy gentleman,
his countenance at the same time assuming an
expression rather of anger than of sorrow; ‘ I
did choose the right number—bought it—
brought it home, and had it in my little table
draw: but-’
‘ It was stolen, perhaps, sir,’ said the winkle
man’s friend, in a piteous tone.
‘ No, sir, not that. I had it—it w*as mine: it
was in the days when lotteries lasted a month,
and tickets rose in value as they continued un
drawn. I went into the city on business; a
friend, who knew my ticket, called in my ab
sence—offered my wife a hundred and twenty
guineas for it; she knew that it had only cost me
five and twenty;—sold it to him; all for my
good, poor soul—she’s in heaven now, sir—it’s
no use scolding about it—it won’t bring it back;
and the very same afternoon, d—n me—I’m
enrp vmi’ll pypiicp cifp.'irinrr at flip rppnllpp.
tion—it came up a thirty thousand pound prize!’
A general exclamation of horror followed
the announcement.
‘And now, sir,’ continued the gentleman, as I
walk the streets in wet weather, because I can
not afford a hackney-coach, my friend Dodham,
the lucky purchaser, dashes by in his carriage,
and splashes me with mud. He lives in the
house which I had all my life an anxiety to pos
sess; and has refused his consent to his son’s
marrying my daughter, on the plea of her po
verty.’
It wu$ evident that the melancholy gentleman
felt the circumstance keenly.
4 Well,’ said Seville, 41 don’t think I could
have survived such a thing.’
k Only conceive, sir,’ said the gentleman,
seeming to delight in aggravating the miseries
of his loss, 4 only conceive my coming home
out of the city—having seen my number pla
carded as the prize—having compared it with
the memorandum in my pocket book—having
bought a necklace and a pair of earrings for
my wife upon the strength of it—and finding,
upon my arrival, that she had sold my thirty
thousand pounds, which I was sure was in my
pocket, to a man I hated, for one hundred and
twenty guineas, which she exultingly exhibited;
and which, with thirty-five more, went to pay
for the baubles I had taken her home.’ •
41 could not have stood that,’ said the win
kle-man.
‘Nor I,’ said the weeping husband.
‘ I should have cut my throat,’ said Seville.
‘ So I did, sir,’ said the melancholy gentle
man, ‘ and here are the murks where it was
sewn up!’—exhibiting at the same moment a
huge scar across his windpipe.
Hook's Love and Pride.
QUERIES.
Did not General Jackson in June last, urge
Mr. Duane to remove the depoaites because it
was full time for the bank to commence winding
up its affairs?
Did not Mr. Taney remove them in October,
expressly on the ground that it was better for
the bank to commence curtailing its discounts?
Did he not expressly declare, that his object
. A — ~ ^ 1 honlr A.-. ■ ■ t<A r. I 1 tK.lt K llliirllt
» ao IU UIV, uu.il rv vw VUI Wllij liiui. *IV/ J * * » w, . . V
supply the vacuum by issues made by the de
posite banks?
If it was time for the bank to commence
winding up in June last, can it be too soon
now?
If the bank will not curtail, how can Mr. Ta- ,
ney get the notes of his pet banks into circula
tion.
If the bank in ten months, from August to
June, have curtailed their circulation, only two
and a half millions—and they have sixteen mil
lions more to curtail, must it not eurtail in a
much greater ratio during the remaining
months of the existence of the charter?
Has it not fifty-millions to cull in, in twenty
months?
If it were to continue curtailing at the rate of
two millions a month, will it not still have due
to it at the expiration of the charter a sum of
twelve millions?
If under all these considerations it is not now
time for the bank to commence winding up .its
concerns, when will it be time?
Will the Albany Argus answer these ques
tions, and explain how it is that the administra
tion press, after urging the necessity of the
bank commencing to wind up its affairs, now
abuse it for doing so?— Telegraph.
FISH WHARF.
SEALED Proposals will be received at my
house on Payne street, until Saturday next,
at 12 o’clock, FOR RENTING THE FISH
WHARF the remainder of the year, ending on
the first day of March next. Good security will
ae required for the payment of the rent; and in
case of failure to comply with the terms, the
premises will be let to the next highest bidder.
june 10—t!4th _WM. VE1TCH, S. P.
ARCHIBALD HENDERSON, JR.
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
WILL practice in the Superior and Inferior
Courts of Fairfax and Loudoun Counties,
and in the Superior and Quarterly Courts of
Prince William. His office is a front room in
;he Hutel of William D. Wilcoxson, at Fairfax
3ourt House. june 9—lm
NOTICE.
THE subscriber desires to settle up his busi
ness, and, to enable him to do so, requests
ill persons indebted to him to pay their ac
counts. Further indulgence cannot be granted
ifter the 10th instant, at which time he will place
ill unsettled accounts in the hands of a collector.
Te will sell his stock of DRY GOODS on hand
ow. GEO. P. WISE.
june 6—dtlOth___
BLANKS AND PAMPHLETS j
’rented, with neatness d*. despatch, at Thic office
ALEXANDRIA:
WEDNESDAY MORNING, JUNeTi,
TOST OFFICE department.
We stated, ip. yesterday’s Gazette, that ti
long looked for Report on the affairs of the Q
neral Post Office had been made, and that it ex
posed a degree of rottenness and corrupt o
which will astonish this nation. The p^*
shows that the labors of the Senate Committer
have been intense; and the zeal, fidelif,/ ^
accuracy of research, with which their inve<t
gations were pursued, reflect the highest C»-LV
on the majority, Messrs. Ewing, Clayton ^ •
Frelinghuysen. The following analysis of-p
Report is given in the National Intelligence - *
The Report sets out with stating, as the
suit of the investigations by the Committee n
the Department is largely insolvent. itl
tionto which, the Committee report that thep :
Master General has, fiom time to time bond
ed large sums of money for the use of the p0s.°r
fice, without any authority of law. Some of th
loans, it is stated, were made during the last s .5
sion of Congress, at the commencement of u j j7
the Postmaster General had reported the Den! r “
meat to be in possession of a considerable vUr
plus of funds. The Report goes on to state V
debts and credits of the Department, as neariv
as can be ascertained, whereby it apneas
the General Post Office is insolvent by
hundred and three thousand six hundred •
twenty-five dollars beyond all its resources'
Comparing the expenses of the Post OfTr
Establishment for four years preceding the cor
mencement of the present Administration \n
the four years following them, it is stated bv p .
Committee that the exj)ense of the lust v.
years exceeded that of the preceding four year*
by three millions and thirty-eight thousand d'-l
lars. Within the last term of four yea,/i
is true, some few mail routes have been esi?b
lished; but their aggregate expense bears bin ;
cess thus ascertained. This excess of expendi
ture, and consequent insolvency of the Post C
fice, is mainly attributed to mal-administrau-r
and favoritism in the making of contracts Jr,
extra allowances, of which the Report goes :J
to spread out in detail a number of partidjir
cases, as a sample of the whole.
The Report declares the reports, ztaw.iK.iu
and estimates of the officers of the Fost Office *
be so erroneous and defective as little ;o hr •*.
lied upon: so little, that unfavorable lz arc b .•
conclusions which the Committee arrive J-. «'
is more probable that they fall far short of. re
ther than exceed, the reality. In proof of wiiic-i
among other circumstances, it is stated tnaJV
the number of miles in a year travelled by bi
Mails, as detailed in the Annual Report ob lJ
Postmaster General, there is, by accurate ecr'
putation, error to the amount of nT> less tbi r'r >
ven millions two hundred thousand miles, '/ h:
Report points out also many discrepancies b
tween the statements in (he Blue Book (thus ob
signating the biential report of official experts- s
made to Congress) an*l official and otiicr ste.i
ments, as to the amounts of contracts, e.arL
lowances, and contingent expenses siiowip
great inaccuracy and confusion in rccorr s
and administration of the Department.
The Report also condemns the practice, ?.'»
is proved to have prevailed, of pledging di j
partment for loans obtained by contracto rs
in turn making use of the names cf contT.CiO ::
to obtain money for the use of tlu ^epr.rt ren .
In connection with which, the Commi.iec -• i.eb.
to certain money transactions betwee;: ? :
tors and individuals in office in th 3 De^artme'h
which have come out in evidence before till
Committee, and which they oerticularh: *:i\
submit without comment.
The contingent expenditures 01 m :Vepr.\
ment, the allowances of money tc iT'elhr
agents, the payment of money to primers :n .*•*
rious shapes, the employment of printers lsco.
tractors, *fcc., and other matters which il brinL
the patronage of the Government in 3c.1f.ict
with the freedom of elections,” are handled /nr
great force and some severity by the Com-ni.
tee: ana tne Keport ends with a series of resc
lutions, declaratory of errors, abuses, end
fects, mostly imputable to the administn. Jen
the Post Office, but in part also inherent it. h
system itself, which, in the opinion af he Com
mittee, have increased, are irc^er.sing, en
ought to be diminished.
The following are the resolution.; appended *•
the Report, and show some of the abuses vhiJ
the Committee have exposed:
1. Resolved, That it is proved l.v- anJuOu
that large sums of money have been oo’ev
at different Banks, by the Postr.icsier Gcno/i:
in order to make up the deficiency in fhe
of carrying on the business of the t’cs- CfJc
Department, without authority given b; * :.y ;r.
of Congress; and that, as Congress alone occ
sesses the power to borrow money or. the rcsCi
of the United States, all such contracts for r-a .>
by the Postmaster General are illegal ana yci'
2. Resolved, That several reports of the j/o.y
master General contain statements which
subsequent papers, he admits tc be eiTonec.:
that others especially, those of the 18tli of t.p y
1832, and the 3d of March, 183*, are inconsy
tent with each other; and tliai, therefore
ance cannot be placed on the truth ana a ecu
cy of the communications made by ‘he i)cr,a
ment.
3. Resolved, That it is fully n.oved, iba. .
practice prevails in the Post Office Denartnien
of granting contracts on bids which T*u.y fro?i
the advertisements, and of changing and rlf*
ing contracts in material respects after they h; »'•
been accepted, and that this practice pre'on '
all fair competition among persons wishing iO
make contracts, is calculated to give undue au
vantage to favorites, and is in violation of law
4. Resolved, That it appears, that an individ
ual who made a contrac t for the transportation
of the mail, was required to give it up for no
other reason than that it might be given to ano
ther, desirous of having it, and that the act ol
the Department, in requiring such surrender
and in effecting the transfer, was illegal and un
just.
5. Resolved, That the proposals for carrying
the Mail on the route from Chicago to Green
Bay, was withheld from advertisement; that the
contract therefor was given in another name,
but really and truly to one of the clerks in the
Department; that the compensation proposed in
the bid was raised without any increase of ser
vice; and that the transaction is a direct breach
of law.
6. Resolved, That extra allowances have been
granted to contractors without any increase o*
duty or service on their part, and that in otnei
:ases extra allowances have been made which
ire unreasonable, extravagant, and out of ai
proportion with the increase of service. ,
7. Resolved, That the Post Master Genera*
m