The Congressional Globe, Volume 13, Part 1: Twenty-Eighth Congress, First Session Page: 469

                                
'. * '"?> '"k % '
Congressional globe.
made, he did not know. For himself, he was desi-
rous of restoring the appropriations to something
like the estimates; or, at all events, going into an
examination of the various objects of appropriation,
and see where increase was necessary, and where it
could be dispensed with. He was admonished,
however, that no increased appropriation which the
Senate might choose to make would be likely to be
agreed to, or carried into effect in the other House.
He was in favor, himself, of every deficiency in the
appropriations being filled; but he was not sure that
the works mentioned by the senator from Arkansas
were not left out for other reasons than those of re-
trenchment. The estimates upon which this bill
was founded came from the Engineer department,
and not from the Quartermaster General's, from which
those concerning the forts alluded to by the senator
from Arkansas have heretofore come. A majority of
the committee thought it was expedient, while the
treasury was in an exhausted condition, not to re-
commend any increase of appropriation in this bill,
but to leave the bill as it was, and when the finances
were so improved as to justify it, to get these matters
restored to the full amount of the estimates. Possi-
bly it was intended to place within some other bill
all the appropriations estimated for, and leaving
them out of this bill, for fortification which came
under another head, and the appropriations for which
emanated from another department. This he sug-
gested with some hesitation, because he was not
sure that such was the intention. He was aware
that the honorable senator from Arkansas had al-
ways expressed a strong solicitude that the
fortifications on the southern frontier should be
erected, but did not know what particular exigency
there was for them on that frontier. He did not
know whether it was designed that they should be
maintained in the places where they were commenced,
or whether they were to be removed.
- Mr. SEVIER suggested that his friend was mis-
taken in his geography,'in talking about those
forte being South. He was for maintaining the
forts on the western border, between us and the
Indians who had obtained patents for their lands.
The senator suggested that these forts might have
been cut down altogether. They were not cut down,
but left out altogether.
[Mr. EVANS observed, that so were others left
out.]
If there were important forts to be left out, they
should all share the same fate. Bills of this de-
scription were all the same, whether they emanated
from the Engineer, or any other department. He
should like to know any good reason why the Sen-
ate should permit the[House, for any freak of theirs,
to frame a bill under different heads for the childish
purpose of saving this or that?
Mr. EVANS did not know that such was the in-
tention of the House, but he had supposed so, from
another case in which the Senate had amended a
bill of the 'House, and the amendments were not
concurred in. He had been informed that the House,
in omitting these appropriations, contemplated em-
bracing tliem in another bill.
Mr. SEVIER said that the objection he had to
the bill, as it now stood, was not on account of the
amount proposed to be appropriated; but that, for
the purpose of economizing or retrenching, all im-
portant forts on the western frontiers should be
omitted—the Missouri frontier, the Arkansas fron-
tier, 2,000 miles in length, were all left out; while on
the Atlantic, at Charleston, Mobile, New York, and
all along that coast, which were represented by
friends in the committee, the fortifications were em-
braced in the bill. He wanted no such partial legis-
lation, so far as he was concerned. He was for all
appropriations for objets of this kind being in the
same bill. He hoped the chairman would see that
the Senate should have them altogether; and with
a view to effect that object, he (Mr. S.) would move
to recommit this bill to the Committee on Finance,
with instructions to put in it the forts to which he
had alluded.
Mr. EVANS said that would hardly be neces-
sary. He suggested the propriety of letting it lie
over till to-morrow, when the senator from Arkansas
could move to amend it by including those forts.
Mr. SEVIER was satisfied; and the bill was
passed over informally.
On motion by Mr. KING, the previous orders of
the day were postponed, and the Senate took up
for consideration, as in committee of the whole, tfie
bill for the relief of Caroline E. Clitherall, the
widow of Dr. George C. Clitherall, late a surgeon
in the army of the United States. There being no j
proposition to amend, it was reported to the Senate,
and ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.
House bill entitled an act for the establishment of
a new collection district for the Territory of Flori-
da, to be called the Suwannee district, was read
twice; when
Mr. HUNTINGTON moved that it be referred
to the Committee on Territories.
Some debate took place on this proposition to re-
fer. The question involved in debate was, whether
it was not more proper, a regular standing Commit-
tee on the Territories having been created, to refer
all bills, of whatever character, affecting the Territo-
ries, to that committee.
Messrs. HUNTINGTON, BERRIEN, and
KING thought that, to carry out the views of
those urging the appointment of the Territorial
Committee, this bill should go to that committee.
Messrs. EVANS, BUCHANAN, MERRICK,
and BAGBY were understood to advocate its ref-
erence to the Committee on Commerce, and to con-
tend that those subjects of entirely local nature
should go to the Committee on Territories.
The question was put on a motion to refer it to
the Committee on Territories, and decidcd in the
negative.
The bill was then referrsd to the Committee on
Commerce.
Several other bills from the House relating to ter-
ritorial matters, were read twice, and referred to ap-
propriate standing committees.
REDUCTION OP POSTAGE AND ABATEMENT
OF THE FRANKING PRIVILEGE.
The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill
to reduce the rates of postage, to limit the franking
privilege, and to prevent frauds on the revenues of
the Post Office Department; the question pending
being the amendment of Mr. Simmons to strike out
100 and insert 250 miles, as the distance chargeable
with 5 cents postage.
Mr MERRICK suggested to the Senate that,
while it was not his purpose- to interfere at all with
the senator from Indiana, [Mr. Hannegan,] who
was entitled to the floor, he would merely say that
time would be saved by getting through the amend-
ments, and discussing them singly, as offered, be-
fore the general debate on the merits of the bill pro-
ceeded. In relation to observations made by the
senator from Vermont [Mr. Phelps] yesterday,
Mr. M. made a few explanations—chiefly with re-
gard to the objections urged as to the phraseology of
the bill. He referred the senator from New Jersey
[Mr. Dayton] to the General Post Office law, to
" satisfy him that the Postmaster General was therein
authorized to be the prosecutor of all offenders
against the post-office laws. As to the objection
that this bill proposed to make that penal and crimi-
nal which was innocent before, he referred as author-
ity to the act of 1807, chapter 77, in which it would
be found the same course of legislation was adopted.
Mr. SIMMONS proposed to withdraw his amend-
ment, for the purpose of affording the senator from
Indiana an opportunity of delivering his sentiments
on the general merits of the bill.
The amendment was accordingly withdrawn.
Mr. HANNEGAN, after a few prefatory re-
marks, stated that he felt himself so situated that,
while he could not vote for this bill, he should, in
obedience to the resolutions passed by the legisla-
ture of Indiana, vote for a proper bill to reduce the
rates of postage. He did not believe the present
bill was calculated to provide sufficient revenue for
the support of the department. Should the number
of letters be doubled under the proposed rates of
postage, the revenue would be only $3,655,000;
whereas the Postmaster General's report showed
that §4,500,000 would be required to defray the ex-
penses of the department; proving that this bill
would cause a deficit of $845,000.
Mr. MERRICK interposed to say that the letter
postage last year was only §3,700,000, being very
little over the senator's estimate; but the other re-
sources of the department made up the revenue.
Mr. HANNEGAN requested the Senator would
hear him out. He then proceeded to show that,
bringing into account all the items of probable re-
duction, the deficit would not be less, on the whole
transactions of the department, than $1,600,000. He
then adverted to the experience of Great Britain
since the establishment of her penny-post system,
to show that the increase of the number of letters
there had been but two and a half fold, instead of
five-fold, as anticipated. This was where the re-
duction of postage had been very great, and where
the old rates had been excessively high,, contrasted
with the rates of postage in this country. It had
been a standing argument before Parliament on the
English post office bill, that the rates "of postage in
the United States were exceedingly low. In no
case could he calculate upon the number of letters
under this act being larger than forty-nine millions.
He discredited altogether the supposition of the
chairman of the Post Office Committee, that the
number of letters would be increased to sixty mil-
lions. Mr. H. asked when did the express routes
exist to which both the chairman of that committee
and the Postmaster General attributed all the griev-
ances of the department? They existed between
New York, Boston, Providence, Philadelphia, and
Baltimore; but these points are over 100 miles from
each other, and the rate proposed by this bill is ten
cents for all distances over 100 miles; whereas, under
the old postage, it is only twelve and a half cents—
the difference being wholly inadequate to effect any
suppression of the expresses, or to increase to any
considerable extent the revenue of those routes.
Mr. H. next adverted to the charges preferred by
the senator from Vermont, [Mr. PHELFs,lagainst
the excessive expenditures of the Post OfficeDepart-
ment, by means of contracts for carrying the mail.
He quoted the post office statistics, showing the
number of miles over which the mails are carried,
and contrasted them with the statistics of the routes
over which the British mail is carried. This proved
that the expense in Great Britain is about five cents
per mile; while in this country it is seven cents. The
difference between the territory to be travelled over-
and the density of population in the two countries,
showed that no parallel could exist. In many of
the mail routes of the United States, stages for car-
rying the mails have to be sustained for the most
part by mail contracts, because the passengers on
those routes are not sufficient to support them by
ordinary fares.
The Chairman of the Post Office Committee as-
sumed, that the public voice called for the change
proposed by this bill. He (Mr. H.) denied that it
was the mass of the people who called for this change:
men who paid but a dollar, or a dollar and a half
each for their year's postage, cared very little for the
saving that this bill would effect for them. It was
the bankers, and brokers, and capitalists, who can
best afford to pay sufficient postnge, that petitioned
and called so loudly for this measure. He was
himself in favor of a proper reduction of postage;
but he was not in favor of this bill.
Mr. H. next referred to the proposed abate-
ment of the franking privilege. The principle
of fixing the same number of franks to all
members of Congress, whether their districts
were near or far from the seat of government,
would act most unequally; because it gives to
the members whose districts are within a hundred
miles, 10 franks a day, and to those beyond one
hundred miles, only 5. This is a defect, which, of
course, the chairman would see the necessity of
amending. If this mode of continuing the privilege
is to be established, let its operation be at least equal.
So far as he was personally concerned, he cared not
if the franking privilege were abolished altogether;
but it was not personal considerations that should
prevail. The rights of the people rose above all
other considerations in this matter. The franking
privilege was given for the benefit of the commu-
nity; it afforded an opportunity of communicating
freely, frequently, and fully, between the national
legislature and the constituency immediately repre-
sented in that legislature. To deprive the people of
this mode of communication would be to dry up
the very streams which irrigated the soil of public
liberty. .
He had numerous objections to the bill; which,
however, it was not, at this stage of the proceedings,
necessary to particularize. He would reserve ■« hat
he had to say for another opportunity. He should,
at a proper time, move an amendment to recommit
the bill, with instructions; but at present he would
merely send it to the table, that its object might be
known and considered.
The amendment was to regulate the rates of post-
age by the federal coin, and under the respective
rates of 5, 10, 15, and 20 cents on single letters, ac-
cording to the following distances: within 150 miles
5 cents; over 150 and under 300, 10 cents; over 300
and under 500 miles, 15 cents; over 500 miles, 20
cents.
Mr. SIMMONS renewed his amendment to alter
the distance for the lowest rate of postage (5 cents)
from 100 to 250 miles.