For congressional remarks that are not speeches.
Mr. VAN BUREN observed that, on Friday the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. White) happened to be on the floor, explaining his views on this amendment, when he (Mr. V. B.) entered the Senate—and he supposed, from the tenor of that gentleman’s observation, that his amendment was, in its scope, co-extensive with the argument on the bill to abolish Imprisonment for Debt, to which he alluded. I was, said... Continue Reading
Mr. VAN BUREN, who said that the question ought now to be disposed of. Six States were not waiting the result of the legislation on this subject. This was the second year which this subject had been before Congress, and he was very desirous that its decision should be no longer delayed; and it was quite certain that the bill could be disposed of at once. Mr. V. B. then made some remarks in a very... Continue Reading
Mr. VAN BUREN said he hoped the bill would not be re-committed. It would create an injurious delay-while, if there ever was a case in which a legislative decision ought speedily to be made, it was this. The bill ought not, therefore, to be recommitted, so as to place it behind the other business. He thought the Senator from Maine might reach his object without recommitting the bill; and Mr. V. B... Continue Reading
Mr. VAN BUREN explained. He had not attributed the deficiency of the commutation to any unjust or unfair intention towards the Officers. But he had said that seven years' full pay was their just equivalent, and that, the present applicants having lived so long, the operation of the act upon them was unjust.
Mr. VAN BUREN, in the commencement of his remarks, spoke in so low a tone that the Reporter could not distinctly hear him. He was understood to say, that, if there was any ground for opposing the measure, it was that it might interfere with the laws of the States. The bill had formerly been before the Committee on the Judiciary, of which he was a member, and had been found full of difficulties.... Continue Reading
Mr. VAN BUREN said that the proposition of the gentleman from South Carolina related to the Judiciary, which he conceived to be one of the most important branches of our Government. Great difficulty had been found in adapting the process of the United States’ courts to the judiciary system of the States. It had more than once been proposed to pass general laws on the subject. But, whenever this... Continue Reading
The bill to regulate the intercourse between the United States and the British Colonies, was returned from the other House with amendments. Mr. JOHNSTON, of Louisiana, moved that the Senate agree to the amendments. On the motion of Mr. VAN BUREN, the bill was ordered to lie on the table until the afternoon.
Mr. VAN BUREN said that he thought a better disposition might be made of the bill than that proposed by the Senator from Indiana. If the time had not arrived, it certainly was fast approaching, when a due attention to the other great interests of the country would make some general and permanent disposition of the public lands indispensable. In its interference with our legislation, and a great... Continue Reading
Mr. VAN BUREN considered the object of the bill clearly to be immediately directed to the protection of manufactures: therefore, the reference to the Committee on Manufactures seemed to be proper. Afterwards, it would be also proper to refer it to the Committee on Finance, who would report on the question, whether the state of the revenue, or the effect upon it of this bill, would allow the... Continue Reading
Mr. VAN BUREN made a few remarks in explanation of the grounds upon which he should vote against this motion. He was understood to object to the recommitment of the bill for the proposed purpose, as the amendment was of so simple a character that it could be as well offered and acted on in the Senate.
Mr. VAN BUREN said, that he should vote against the resolution, not because he was at all solicitous whether the election was made by plurality or by a majority, but because he considered the Senate as concluded by the joint resolutions of 1819. He gave his reasons why those resolutions should be regarded as paramount and binding, derived from their nature, phraseology, and the practice of... Continue Reading
The bill for the gradual improvement of the Navy having been returned from the other House with sundry amendments, the first of them, in relation to the preservation of timber, was concurred in. On the amendment fixing three, instead of two, Dry Docks, discussion arose between Messrs. WOODBURY, HAYNE, VAN BUREN, CHANDLER, SMITH, of Maryland, HOLMES, HARRISON, SILBEE, and BELL, when the amendment... Continue Reading
5. Hon. Martin Van Buren—The zealous friend of State Sovereignty. Mr. VAN BUREN here rose and said: He would be unwanting in courtesy as well as in gratitude, if he withheld his acknowledgements for the honor conferred upon him, by associating his name with the cause of State Sovereignty. The motive of that association was only to be found in the partiality of gentlemen, as it had not been in his... Continue Reading
Mr. VAN BUREN was not satisfied with the motion of the gentleman from Vermont. He thought it would endanger the passage of the bill, as, when it should hereafter be called up, other orders of the day might intervene, and the bill at length fail of being acted upon. If, after all that had been done, the gentleman wished more information, he should be willing to accede to his request; but, if this... Continue Reading
Mr. VAN BUREN said, that every step the discussion had progressed had riveted his original convictions, that Congress, in passing the bill, with the section in question, would not only transcend its constitutional power, but establish a system which would be most mischievous and oppressive in its operation. So thinking, he had intended to have replied to the other observations of the Senator... Continue Reading