For congressional remarks that are not speeches.
Mr. VAN BUREN said the aid of this Government could only be afforded to these objects of improvement, in three ways: by making a road or canal, and assuming jurisdiction—by making a road or canal, without assuming jurisdiction, leaving it to the States; or by making an appropriation, without doing either. In his opinion, the Government had no right to do either, and at some future time he should... Continue Reading
Mr. VAN BUREN said it was due to the gentleman from New Hampshire, to state that the remark he had alluded to, was made by Mr. V. B. In stating the various plans which had been proposed to relieve the Western States, he had mentioned that one had been a bill reported some years ago in the House of Representatives, and which had also been offered by way of amendment to the bill proposed last year... Continue Reading
Mr. VAN BUREN said it was with some relutance that he relinquished his intention of vindicating the act of 1802, from what he considered the unjust attack made upon it by the gentleman from Rhode Island. The recommitment of this bill to the Judiciary Committee, on the resolution of the gentleman from New Hampshire, with the explanations which had been made by the gentlemen from New Hampshire,... Continue Reading
Messrs. JOHNSON, of Ken. HOLMES, MILLS, VAN BUREN, EATON, and HAYNE, entered, also, into the debate, chiefly in explanation of the considerations that had led the Senate to make the existing change in its rules; their experience of the effects of the change, and their views of its propriety or impropriety—the comparative merits of the two modes of appointing Committees, &c. &c. (As the... Continue Reading
Mr. VAN BUREN moved to lay the bill on the table, which motion prevailed.
The bill from the House, for the relief of Elizabeth Lewis, was then taken up: and, after some explanation by Messrs VAN BUREN and HOLMES, it was ordered to a third reading.
Mr. VAN BUREN gave notice that he should, tomorrow, ask leave to introduce a bill to alter the time of holding the District Court in the Northern District of the State of New York.
The Senate then proceeded, as in committee of the whole, to consider the bill to alter the time of holding the District Court in the Northern District of the State of New York. Mr. VAN BUREN briefly explained the object and grounds of the bill; after which, it was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.
The Senate then, according to the order of the day, proceeded to the consideration of the resolution proposing amendments to the Constitution, in regard to the election of President and Vice President of the United States. Mr. VAN BUREN rose and said, that the resolution under consideration referred to a subject confessedly of great interest: it had been but a short time since laid before the... Continue Reading
Agreeably to notice, Mr. VAN BUREN asked, and having obtained leave, introduced a bill “to alter the time of holding the District Court, in the Northern District of the State of New York;” which was read, and passed to a second reading.
Mr. VAN BUREN explained the nature and object of the bill; after which it was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.
Mr. VAN BUREN presented the petition of Archibald Gracie, praying that measures may be adopted for the restitution of property illegally seized by France in 1807. Referred.
A motion was made by Mr. VAN BUREN, of New York, to amend the resolution, by adding thereto the following: Resolved, That the Constitution of the United States, in authorizing the President of the United States to nominate, and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint, “Ambassadors, and other public Ministers,” authorizes the nomination and appointment to offices of a... Continue Reading
Mr. VAN BUREN presented the petition of Seth Watkins, praying a pension. Referred.
The Senate took up the bill, “to authorize the legal representatives of the Marquis de Maison Rouge, and those claiming under him, to institute a suit against the United States by petition, in the court of the United States, to try the validity of their title.” (This case has been repeatedly before Congress in one shape or other, has been often discussed with great attention, and is familiar to... Continue Reading