The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, Seventeenth Congress, First Session, [Volume 1] Page: 147
[621] p.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
■147
HISTORY OF CONGRESS.
148
Senate.
Officers of the Customs.
January, 1822.
but it now appeared that the chairman of the
committee (Mr. Holmes of Maine) had made a
material error in relation to the emoluments of the
collector of Norfolk, and proposed to remedy the
error by raising the commission of that officer.
But, Mr. P. said, he hoped the gentleman would
have the liberality—he alluded to his liberality as
a public man, not to personal or private liberality—
todo justice to the officerat Norfolk, without cutting
down the compensation of the collector at Rich-
mond. Mr. P. saw no justice in this proceeding,
and he hoped it would not prevail.
Mr. Holmes, of Maine, observed, in reply, that
in regard to the emoluments at Norfolk, the Trea-
sury Department had no returns since the year
1820, when the falling off had not taken place
there; but since that period the restrictive laws had,
it appeared by an unofficial statement of the col-
lector, produced a great reduction of the income at
that port. Having entire confidence in the state-
ment of the officer, he was willing to legislate on
the faith of it, and make a proportionable augmen-
tation of his commission. At Richmond, how-
ever, the receipts had increased and were increas-
ing, and at that point, moreover, there was no naval
officer to divide the fees with the collector—at
Norfolk there was. In Richmond, also, the con-
tingent expenses were unreasonably great in one
respect at least—in the item of office rent, for in-
stance $600 was charged, a sum greater than was
charged at any other port in the United States.
The simple reason, in short, for the motion was,
that one office would justify reduction, and the
other required an increase of the emoluments, and
it was to equalize the two that he moved the
amendment.
Mr. Barbour advocated an increase of the com-
pensation of the collector of Norfolk, which had
in fact fallen off so far as to be now below that of
the inspector of the port, and the net proceeds of
which, after paying expenses, would not defray
even the officer's house rent, or the cost of his fuel
and water. Mr. B. was advised of this fact by
the collector himself, in whose word he had the
most implicit confidence. But why was it neces-
sary to rob Peter to pay Paul ? Why reduce the
emoluments at Richmond to do justice to the officer
at Norfolk? The question ought to be an insulated
one, he argued, and not connected with another.
The peculiar state of affairs at Norfolk, Mr. B.
remarked, resulted from the navigation policy now
in force. That town was once prosperous, and
the compensation of the collector, at a commis-
sion of three-fourths of one per cent., amounted to
five thousand dollars. It was now different; such
was the effect of the navigation system adopted
for the public interest, of which Mr. B. said he did
not mean to complain, because private good must
always yield to the public interest. Such was the
effect of this system, however, on the port of Nor-
folk, as stated by the collector, whom he would
as soon believe as Cato himself. Mr. B. examined
the basis on which the calculations of the Com-
mittee of Finance were bottomed, to show that
the commission at Norfolk ought to be two per
cent. The office was one of great responsibility,
and if there was any thing in the argument
urged yesterday by the gentleman from Louisiana,
founded on the unhealthiness of New Orleans, that
argument would apply with nearly as much force
to Norfolk. Mr. B. then proceeded to oppose the
diminution of the commission of the collector at
Richmond. If the mover of the reduction went
upon personal considerations, he could assure him
that the collector at Richmond was the last man
that ought to be touched. This officer was an old
man, with a large family, entirely dependent on
the income of the office; he was a soldier of the
Revolution, a gallant and distinguished one—a
man of whom the Father of his Country had
made honorable mention—who had led the forlorn
hope at Stony Point—whose name would occupy
a bright page in the annals of his country. Should
this man have the support of his age taken from
him, and his family left without bread 1 He hoped
not; and to prevent it, Mr. B. moved a division
of the question, that it might be taken separately
from Richmond and moved, further, that Norfolk
be allowed two per cent.
Mr. Holmes replied at some length, and argued
to show that it was as just and reasonable to re-
duce the compensation at Richmond from its pres-
ent amount, as to increase that at Norfolk to two
per cent, it was negatived—ayes 10.
Mr. Holmes's motion to fix the commission at
If per cent, was then agreed to. ■
The question being stated on reducing the com-
missions at Richmond to 1^ per cent, to which
Mr. Holmes had varied his motion—
Mr. Barbour observed, that the gentleman had
heretofore been borne out in his system by the Trea-
sury Department—a pretty strong prop—and the
bill had so far been impregnable; but in the pres-
ent motion the gentleman was not sustained by
any authority but his own suggestion; and Mr. B.
hoped the Senate would unite with him in defeat-
ing the proposed amendment, which would reduce
I the compensation of an importan t office and a most
| worthy and distinguished Revolutionary veteran,
| which did not even now exceed two thousand
! dollars.
Mr. Holmes would not dispute that every offi-
cer in Virginia was a distinguished man, a patriot,
and a hero of the Revolution, and that Congress
ought to be liberal in providing for them; but gen-
tlemen had forgotten to remember that, what with
liberality to one and another, we had been reduced to
the necessity of borrowing money, and now were
obliged to call on the liberality of our constituents
to pay it. He would be as liberal as any man to
the Revolutionary soldier, but this was not the
time for liberality. That liberality had brought
the nation into its present difficulties, and this was
the time for retrenchment; and if the public exi-
gencies could not be met by saving a thousand
dollars here and a thousand there, we shall have
either to lay taxes on our constituents, or borrow
more. He spoke of the difficulty of retrenchment.
If we propose to reduce the Army, the friends of
the Army oppose it—if the Navy, the friends of
the Navy oppose it—if the officers on the civil list,
their friends oppose it. This officer must have
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
Gales and Seaton. The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, Seventeenth Congress, First Session, [Volume 1], book, 1855; Washington D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc30365/m1/72/: accessed April 25, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.