bond for the duty. The goods are sold to a western merchant, who retails them to the people. Upon what terms are they sold and retailed? The western merchant buys at 2, 6, or 9 months, and retails them to the people, his customers, at 12 months credit. It is the policy and interest of the western merchant to keep his New York debt as large as possible, money being worth more in the West than in the East. The possession of it enables him to purchase the produce of the country. They desire no relief, but the usual and ordinary indulgence. Press the New York merchant, he urges payment earlier and more earnestly from the western retailer; he presses his customer, and the entire distress eventually falls upon the people of every class and condition in life. In proportion as you relieve the New York merchant from this calamity, you relieve the whole people--the whole nation--by a continuance of the usual credit, commerce, and confidence. Hence, sir, inasmuch as in voting for the relief in the bill we shall relieve the humblest citizen in his district, he should accord his support. Mr. UNDERWOOD spoke in opposition to the bill, at considerable length. Mr. C. JOHNSON said that he was desirous of saying a few words on the amendment to the bill now under consideration, before the final action of the committee upon it; that his opinions upon such a subject as this could not be influenced in the least by any consideration of a political or party character, and he could not be lieve that those of any member of the committee would be, notwithstanding the allusions to such subjects so often made in the debate; that he would extend to the citizens of New York the same relief, and no more, that he would be willing to allow to any other city in the Union visited by such calamity. The questions which presented themselves to the consideration of the committee upon this bill were similar, in all respects, to others which had been often before Congress--he might indeed say, almost every Congress from the origin of the Government; that the action of Congress upon this class of cases was as well settled and more closely adhered to than upon any other he had examined; and if the determinations of Congress were in any case to form a rule for its future action, the relief to which the present applicants were entitled under the usages of the Government, and which they ought to expect, should be considered as such. For more than thirty years, similar relief had been extended to all such applicants; and he believed that there was not a single case in which it had been refused; that his object in addressing the committee at this late hour was to give a concise view of the course heretofore adopted upon such applications; he believed it was liberal and just, and should be allowed to the present applicants; and that the amendment which he had the honor of submitting to their consider. ation was intended to bestow the same relief that had been heretofore given under similar circumstances, and he trusted would be adopted by the committee in lieu of the first section of the bill. Merchandise imported into the United States, upon which the duties to the Government had been paid or secured to be paid, was often destroyed by fire, floods, or some unavoidable accident, whilst in the original packages, and of course before it entered into the consumption of the country; and had often heretofore and would hereafter produce applications to Congress for relief of some sort. Prior to the year 1802, it was the constant practice of Congress to remit the duties. He had found, in the course of his examination, but a solitary case in which that relief had been refused; he alluded to the case of Deveraux and others, which had been rejected by a committee on the 11th of January, 1796. There were a number of cases, from the year 1790 to 1802, in which the duties had been remitted, but which he need [H. OF R. not delay the time of the committee in reciting. The last of the cases had been often brought to the notice of the committee, as a precedent affording even more relief than provided in this bill. The custom-house in Providence was burnt in the latter part of the year 1800, and a large quantity of teas destroyed; the act of the 23d of February, 1801, remitted the duties--a very strong case for the interposition of Congress; and the committee who reported the bill, as if conscious that Congress had gone too far upon such subjects, was careful in placing the relief upon the ground that the goods were destroyed whilst under "the care of the customhouse officers." Relief had been often given before that time to applicants whose goods had been removed from the custom-house, and, in some cases, after a reshipment of the goods for other ports. In the latter part of the same year, a number of applications, similar in character, were made to Congress, which produced the adoption of a resolution of inquiry, as to the propriety of making some general law upon the subject, whereby such cases might be settled at the Treasury Department, without any application to Congress. Mr. Randolph was then at the head of the Committee of Ways and Means, to which that subject was referred; and on the 2d of April, 1802, made a report against the adoption of the resolution, denying the propriety of remitting duties in any such cases. Congress had, prior to that time, acted upon the principles so forcibly and eloquently urged by the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. PHILLIPS,] who addressed the committee the other day. The report of the committee, which he then had before him, and which he would not trouble the committee by reading, did not enter at large upon an enumeration of those principles, or the causes which induced the committee to change the course upon which Congress had before that time acted. It appeared from the report, however, as it would appear to the committee upon a slight examination, that the safety of the public moneys in the Treasury required that more restrictions as well as a more rigid examination of such claims should be made before their allowance, than had been practised by the Government. To permit a return of the duties to be made, or a remission to take place, upon every casualty and at any time, whilst the goods remained in the original packages, or whilst the owner had the right of debenture, seemed to him to open the door for the commission of innumerable frauds upon the Treasury; to prevent which, he did not see any means that the Government could adopt. If the importing merchant was entitled to a remission of duties upon goods accidentally destroyed whilst in the original packages, upon the same principles and upon the same reasons the merchant in the interior, whose goods should be lost in the original packages by any accident, would have a right to call upon the Government to pay to him the amount of duties which he had paid the importer, and which had been paid by the importer to the Government. And the same principle might, with equal propriety, be applied to the consumer, who purchases the goods which are de stroyed before used by him. In our system of indirect taxation, it is no doubt the intention and expectation of the Government that the consumer of the goods imported shall pay the duties, and not the merchant, and it is therefore argued, with great force, that any accident which destroys the goods before they enter into the con sumption of the country should induce Congress to re. mit the duties to the merchant; otherwise the merchant not only loses the goods destroyed, but pays the whole tax; but, however forcible this may appear, it is ne cessary for Congress to fix upon some time when duties shall be considered as due, or when the goods shall be considered to have entered into the cousumption of the country. We cannot delay the collection of the duties until the goods actually enter into the consumption of the country. We cannot delay until the importing merchant sells, or go into such examinations. Since 1802, the rule seems to have been to exact the duties in all cases after the entry at the custom-house, and bonds given according to law; after that time there is no remission; the duties become a part of the value of the goods, and it is the duty of the merchant to insure; the omission to do so on his part is to be esteemed an act of negligence, for which the Government ought not and cannot be made responsible. This seems to have been the principle upon which the committee acted in 1802. At the next session of Congress, another application was made to Congress, well calculated to test the sense of that body upon the cor. rectness of the principle, and the propriety of the report. The custom-house at Portsmouth, New Hampshire, was burnt, and a large quantity of merchandise consumed in it. Application was made to Congress for relief; he presumed for a remission of duties. Mr. Randolph continued at the head of the Committee of Ways and Means; and instead of remitting the duties, as had been the practice of the Government, and as had been done two years before, in behalf of the merchants of Providence, in a precisely parallel case, he introduced and had passed the act of the 14th of February, 1803, allowing to the sufferers by fire one year's indulgence upon their bonds. No other relief was given, although the goods had been burnt in the custom-house, "under the care of the custom-house officers." Similar relief was extended to the sufferers by fire at Norfolk, by the act of 19th March, 1804; and by the act of the 10th February, 1807, a second time to the merchants of Portsmouth. The provisions of the preceding acts extended relief to the debtors of the Government whose " property" had been destroyed by fire, without any other limitation cr restriction. [FER. 18, 1836. house of a debtor, or the destruction of his plantation by flood or earthquake, or the loss of his annual crop by drought, or any other such causes. If any kind of relief was to be allowed in such cases, there would be no end to the applications to this House, nor could any calcula tions be made of the ability of the Treasury to meet any exigency whatever. This constituted in his mind a serious objection to the first section of the bill, that gave relief to all persons" who had suffered a loss of property" by "burning of their buildings or merchandise," embracing that class of sufferers whose "buildings and merchandise" have been insured against fire, and who may have received the full value of their property from the insurance offices. This class ought not to be ranked among the sufferers by fire, and given the relief provided in the first section of this bill. Again: that portion of the importing merchants whose merchandise had been sold and entered into the consumption of the country, and who had of course actually received the amount of duties from the consumer, would be entitled to relief under the first section of this bill, if they had only a house burnt, however large the debt might be to the United States. Mr. J. said that he could not see the propriety of any legislation whatever for persons thus situated. Congress had, upon more occasions than one, refused relief to public officers whose houses had been burnt, and the public money collected by them lost in the conflagration. It also refused relief to officers robbed of the public money in their possession, because of the danger that would arise to the Treasury if such a precedent was established. Such a principle incorporated in our laws might operate more to the prejudice of the public Treas. ury than extending relief to claimants of the latter character. Giving time for the payment of bonds due to the United States was originally allowed, because of the great hardship imposed upon the merchant of having the duties to pay upon the merchandise destroyed by fire, upon which they had accrued. They had not entered into the consumption of the country, and of course the merchant paid the whole tax, in addition to the loss of his property, whilst, in most cases, other merchandise would be imported into the country to supply the place of the quantity consumed, and the Government would thus, a second time, receive the duties. He was for By the act of the 11th of April, 1820, similar relief was extended to the sufferers by the fire at Savannah; and by the act of 5th May, 1824, to Elijah Vansyckle, of Philadelphia; extending the time in each case, for the payment of the bonds, to four years. Upon comparing these acts with the former, it will be perceived that two restrictions are added to the latter, which, in his opinion, were necessary for the equal and just ope-limiting the operation of the first section of the bill to ration of the act among the sufferers: first, that the relief should be limited to those whose merchandise had been destroyed by fire; and, in the second place, to that class of them who had not obtained insurance. It was at that time apparent, and in his opinion not the less so now, that the importing merchant, who had his goods insured, upon their destruction, would receive from the insurance offices the value of the goods, which, of course, included the duty; and that he was not the sufferer. In such cases there was not the slightest ground whatever for an application to Congress either to remit the duties, or extend the time of payment on the bonds. If relief in such a case was was to be given, it should be to the insurance company, not the importing merchant; and he presumed we should never have the insurance companies asking us for relief. the debtors whose merchandise, upon which the duties accrued, has been burnt, and who were without indemnity-leaving those whose "houses" or other "prop. erty" had been burnt, to seek relief, with the other debtors of the Government, under the provisions of the second section of the billl. He was for substituting the credit of three, four, and five years' indulgence, in the place of a remission of duties. It had been said that the insurance offices in New York had been involved in the common ruin; and that those who had insurance would be but partially relieved, if the same restriction was inserted in this bill as had been done in the bill for the relief of the sufferers by fire in Savannah. This might be the case to a considerable extent. He understood, however, that it was not uncommon for the merchants of the city of New York to have insurance effected in other The other restriction in the act of 1820 was also prop-cities; and such of them as had been indemnified by er, and should be introduced in this bill: that the time their insurances ought to be excluded from the relief of payment should be extended on the bonds only which given in the first section of this bill. They had in fact had been given for merchandise destroyed by fire. The received the duties due the Government from the insuonly ground of relief, either for prolonging the time of rance companies, and should be compelled to pay it payment or remitting the duties, was that the merchanover. He had, however, in consequence of the sugdise upon which the duties had accrued had been destroy-gestion, somewhat changed the phraseology of the act ed. He did not believe that misfortunes overtaking the of 1820, in the amendment which he had submitted to debtors of the Government, of whatever character they the committee, so as to extend the relief to those "not inmight be, ever constituted or ought to be made in them-demnified by insurance” and to those whose merchandise selves a ground of relief: such as the burning of the had been consumed, upon which the duties had accrued; intending, as far as practicable, to proportion the relief to the loss sustained by the merchant. The remission of duties seems to have been wholly given up; he did not believe there was a solitary case since 1802. But those most interested on such subjects seemed very reluctant to yield to the decisions of Congress. In 1825 a fire occurred in Boston: Bangs and others, Seawall, Jones, & Co., asked a remission of duties on the merchandises destroyed in the original packages. A bill was reported by the Committee of Ways and Means, giving the relief asked, and was finally acted upon by the House in the spring of 1830, when he had for the first time the honor of a seat upon this floor; he recollected the debate; it was ably and eloquently resisted by the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means at that time, [Mr McDuffie,] as well as by the present chairman of that committee; and he did not believe that the bill had received forty votes in this House. Mr. J. said it was unnecessary at this time further to examine the correctness of the principles upon which Congress had heretofore acted, in refusing to remit duties-that question would be more properly the subject of discussion when some of the bills reported by the Committee of Ways and Means during the present session should be before the House. He trusted that the committee was satisfied, from the remarks he had made, that prolonging the time of payment had been substituted by Congress in lieu of the remission of duties, and that if the House adopted the present bill, or his amendment, it would be so considered. He acknowledged, he said, that he did not see the principle or the reasons upon which some members of the committee acted, who avowed themselves willing to remit the duties, but were unwilling to allow the extension of the time of payment. It was a case, in their estimation, so hard upon the applicants, that they would forgive the debt, but could not allow a credit of three, four, and five years. He thought, if the debts ought to be forgiven, that would be of itself the strongest reason for protracting the payment, so as to enable the debtors to present their case to Congress, and get the final action of that body, before the payment of the money. The Government needs not the money-the surplus on hand cannot be disposed of. If we collected the money, it would remain in the deposite banks without interest, and would not probably be touched by the Government until after the proposed time of payment; it seemed probable, indeed, that it would increase rather than diminish until after the period; and, for his part, he would as soon have the money in the hands of the debtor, well secured, as in the banks; and if, by that means, the dreadful calamity which had befallen the city could be mitigated, he for one would cheerfully allow it. Mr. J. said that he had another objection to the first section of the bill: it authorized the time to be extended, with the assent of the securities on the old bonds, or new bonds to be taken, and the old ones to be cancelled; that he apprehended it would not be safe to impose upon the collector at New York the responsibility of taking new bonds, and new security, for so large a sum of money; that it would be difficult, if not impossible, for the collector to ascertain what influence this great calamity would have upon the fortunes of the various individuals who would be presented to him, as principals or sureties in the obligations to the Government. With the utmost care and caution on the part of the collector, good bonds might be surrendered for new ones, with doubtful or insufficient security taken. He thought, if such an indulgence was extended to the debtors of the Government, Congress should retain all the security they now have, and in every doubtful case make it the duty of the collector to require other and further security before the indulgence should be allowed. VOL. XII.-163 [H. OF R. Mr. J. said that he had proposed the amendment, to avoid what seemed to him exceptions to the first section of this bill. By it the same relief would be given to New York that had been extended to Savannah by the act of 1820, and in very nearly the same language; he thought it more appropriate and more just than the relief given by the preceding acts. He would have preferred the bill without the second section, which allowed six, nine, and twelve months to all the debtors at New York. It was a dangerous precedent to set; there would be no end to applications for postponement, if allowed for any cause; and it could only be excused on account of the unparalleled calamity which had befallen the city. If the Government coerced the payment of the bonds at New York, amounting to near four millions of dollars, upon the heels of such a calamity, a pressure might be produced in the money market that might lose us half the money; by allowing to our debtors whose merchandise was destroyed in the fire, which he understood was near one million of dollars, three, four, and five years to pay it, and to our other debtors at the city, six, nine, and twelve months, every opportunity would be afforded to them to recover from the effects of that distressing calamity, and prepare themselves to meet the payments due the United States at the respective periods allowed them. Mr. J. thought it was the duty of Congress as well as the interest of the Treasury to give relief to the present applicants in some shape. He thought the relief in the amendment, which he had submitted to the committee, preferable to that given by the bill; but if the amendment did not meet the approbation of the committee, he should probably feel it his duty to sustain the bill in its present shape. It was a relief which every liberal, generous creditor would allow his debtor under such an afflicting calamity. It was a relief which they had a right to expect at our hands, having before given such relief upon every application for more than thirty years. It was a relief which our interest as creditor required us to give, to avoid any losses which might result from a pressure. The United States had been liberal, generous, to the sufferers at Caraccas, and by his vote should not be less liberal to our own citizens at New York, who had suffered by the late dreadful conflagration. Mr. REED advocated the bill. He said it was apparent that the New York fire had been an advantage to the Government, because it would receive the duties twice over on the same amount of goods, viz: on those destroyed, and on those imported to supply the loss. Mr. CAMBRELENG replied briefly to the opposers of the bill, and referred to sundry acts heretofore passed on the same subject, and for the postponement of time and relinquishment of interest in purchase of the poor land of the West. Mr. C. assured the House that if the bill were not adopted, the Government would lose three times the amount of the interest proposed to be relinquished. Mr. WISE begged to inquire of the gentleman from New York [Mr. CAMBRELENG] if the proviso, as amended yesterday, was meant to say or to assert that the money, in the hands of the collector or receiver, was not in the Treasury of the United States already? Mr. CAMBRELENG replied, that he did not so consider it. Mr. WISE said that was the point he wished the country to understand. He maintained that the money was in the public Treasury as soon as it was paid. If not, there was no security for the public money, as the individual might either "filch" from it, or use it for party purposes. If the public money, the moment it was received, was considered as in the Treasury, then, under the constitution, not a cent of it could be appropriated without law. But, by the converse doctrine, it might be used for all sorts of party purposes, corruption, and patronage, and portions of it eke out at every step in transitu. Mr. CAMBRELENG should be very happy to unite with the gentleman whenever a measure should be brought to regulate the periods at which the receivers of the public lands, and the collectors of customs, should make their returns to the Treasury. At present it was either law or usage; and, so long as the public money remained in the hands of the receivers of the public lands and collectors of the customs, so long was it liable to the correction of errors. Mr. WISE and Mr. LANE made a few additional remarks; when Mr. CHAMBERS, of Kentucky, moved that the committee rise: negatiyed, without a count. The question was then taken on the motion of Mr. HARDIN to strike out the proviso, as amended, to the first section, and it was decided in the negative: Ayes 59, noes 100. Mr. WILLIAMS, of North Carolina, then moved that the committee rise: negatived. Mr. CAMBRELENG hoped the committee would indulge him with the motion that the committee rise and report the bill to the House, when it could be amended in the House. Objection being made, and the question recurring upon the amendments of Mr. EVERETT, Mr. E. with drew them. Mr. C. JOHNSON then moved the following amend ment to the first section: "That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized, as he may deem best calculated to secure the interest of the United States, to cause to be extended the time of payment on all bonds heretofore given for duties on imported merchandise at the customhouse in the city of New York, and which was consumed in the late conflagration at New York by fire, and the owners of which had not been indemnified by insurance, to three, four, and five years, in equal payments: Provided, always, That in all cases where, in the opinion of the collector at New York, said debts, or any of them, be rendered insecure by such indulgence, that further and additional surety be required before the indulgence be allowed: And provided, also, That nothing in this act contained shall extend to bonds which had fallen due before the 16th of December last: And provided, also, That the assent of the sureties on all said bonds so extended be first had and endorsed on said bonds, respectively." Mr. HOWELL moved the committee rise; negatived: Ayes 58, noes not counted. The amendment was then negatived: Ayes 60, noes not counted. Mr. PEARCE, of Rhode Island, then moved an amendment, allowing fifteen per cent. out of the public Treasury, upon the actual loss; which was negatived, without a count. Mr. HARDIN gave notice that in the House he should renew some of the amendments withdrawn by the gentleman from Vermont. Mr. GARLAND moved a further proviso, to confine the operations of the bill to citizens and residents in New York; which was rejected. On motion of Mr. CAMBRELENG, The committee 'then rose; and the bill, as amended, being reported to the House, was, on motion of Mr. C., made the special order for to-morrow: Ayes 86, noes 39. The House then, at a quarter after five o'clock, adjourned. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 19. CUMBERLAND ROAD. [FEB. 19, 1836. Mr. VINTON, from the Committee on Roads and Canals, reported a bill amendatory of the act for the continuation of the Cumberland road; which was read twice. Mr. V. said that the bill proposed no appropriation. It had reference exclusively to a change in the location of the road in the State of Ohio. It was not necessary, therefore, that the bill should be committed. It was important, both to those who opposed and advocated it, that it should be speedily determined, so that the work upon the road might progress. Those who intended to object to the passage of the bill had no objection that it be ordered to a third reading, and they contemplated opposing it on its passage. He hoped, therefore, that the bill would be ordered to be engrossed, and that its further consideration be postponed until the second Tuesday in March. Mr. MASON, of Ohio, was opposed to the bill, but had no objection to dispose of it at present as proposed by his colleague, [Mr. VINTON.] The people who were interested in opposition to the proposed change in the route of the road were now moving, and their remonstrance would be sent in at an early day. Some time, however, was necessary, to afford them an opportunity of being heard on the subject. The day to which his colleague had proposed to postpone the bill would give the desired time, and he had no objection, under the circumstances, that the bill should be ordered to be engrossed. An important report of Lieutenant Canfield, accompanied by a plat, on this subject, was ordered to be printed some six weeks since. He was sorry that this printing had not been executed; and, without intending to cast any censure upon the printer, he was in hopes that the report to which he referred would be laid on their tables before the bill was finally acted on, as it would facilitate and lead to a correct decision of the subject. Mr. MERCER said a few words, which (as usual, from his manner of speaking) were not distinctly understood by the reporter. He was supposed to be opposed to the bill. Mr. DUNLAP was opposed to giving precedence to this bill over other matters of more importance to other sections of the Union. Mr WARDWELL could see no reason why this bill should have priority over other bills. He therefore moved to commit it to a Committee of the Whole House, and make it the order of the day for to-morrow. Mr. VINTON said that, by ordering the bill to be engrossed, no person's rights were compromited, and he thought it strange that objection should be made from a quarter not interested, when those who were opposed to the bill did not oppose the course which he had proposed. Mr. JUDSON was in favor of the commitment of the bill. Its merits should be discussed in committee. The motion of the gentleman from Ohio he considered premature and improper. Mr. CRANE opposed the commitment. could be gained by such a course. Nothing Mr. WARDWELL adverted to the history of the controversy in relation to the proposed change in the location of the Cumberland road, and contended that it was an ordinary proposition, and not entitled to any precedence or extraordinary consideration, at the expense of other measures before the House. It was likely, however, to create a great deal of debate, and he desired that it should take the usual course. Mr. VINTON again urged the adoption of his motion, and opposed the one to commit. The motion to commit was then negatived: Yeas 46, nays not counted. FEB. 19, 1836.] Sufferers by Fire in New York. The motion of Mr. VINTON was agreed to, and the bill was ordered to be read a third time on the 2d Tuesday in March next. [H. OF R. The question then recurring on the amendment, as amended, Mr. EVERETT inquired if it would not defeat the The House then proceeded to the special order of object of the section? the day, being the bill for the RELIEF OF THE SUFFERERS BY THE FIRE IN The bill, as reported from the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, is as follows; the words printed in italics being the only amendment adopted by the committee: A BILL for the relief of the sufferers by the fire in the city of New York. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the collector of the port of New York be, and he is hereby, authorized, as he may deem best calculated to secure the interests of the United States, to cause, to be extended, with the assent of the sureties thereon, to all persons who have suffered loss of property by the conflagration at that place, on the sixteenth day of December last, by the burning of their buildings or merchandise, the time of payment of all bonds heretofore given by them for duties, to periods not exceeding three, four, and five years, in equal instalments, from and after the day of payment specified in the bonds; or to allow the said bonds to be cancelled, upon giving to the said collector new bonds, with one or more sureties, to the satisfaction of the said collector, for the sums of the former bonds, respectively, payable, in equal instalments, in three, four, and five years, from and after the day of payment specified in the bonds to be taken up or cancelled as aforesaid; and the said collector is hereby authorized and directed to give up or cancel all such bonds, upon the receipt of others described in this section; which lastmentioned bonds shall be proceeded with, in all respects, like other bonds which are taken by collectors for duties due to the United States, and shall have the same force and validity: Provided, That those who are within the provision of this section, but who may have paid the bon is subsequent to the late fire, shall also be entitled to the benefit of this section; and that the said bonds shall be renewed from the day when the same were paid, and said payments refunded, if not previously carried into the treasury of the United States by warrant. And provided, also, That the benefits of this section shall not be extented to any person whose loss shall not be proved, to the satisfaction of the collector, to have exceeded the sum of one thousand dollars. SEc. 2. And be it further enacted, That the collector of the port of New York is hereby authorized and directed to extend the payment, in the manner prescribed in the first section of this act, of all other bonds given for duties at the port of New York prior to the late fire, and not provided for in the first section as aforesaid, for six, nine, and twelve months, from and after the day of payment specified in the bonds. Provided, however, That nothing contained in this act shall extend to bonds which had fallen due before the seventeenth day of December last. Mr. CAMBRELENG moved that the House concur in the amendment of the committee; and on this question Mr. HOWELL asked for the yeas and nays; which were not ordered: Ayes 23, noes 117--not one fifth. Mr. ROBERTSON moved to amend the amendment by striking out the whole after the word "previously," and inserting in its place the following words: "if not previously paid into bank, to the credit of the Treasurer of the United States." Mr.CAMBRELENG said he had no objection to that amendment, and it was then agreed to by the House. Mr. CAMBRELENG replied that it would not. Mr. PARKER desired to know how the amount in bank, or in the hands of collectors, could be ascertained or discriminated? He thought the amended amendment was making a distinction without a difference; for he held that the moment a collector had money in his hands it was the property of the Goverment, and held by him in trust. Mr. CAMBRELENG thought, himself, the amendment was of very little importance, for the provision of the first section was just as good without it as with it. Other gentlemen thought differently, and he interposed no objection; but he was indifferent whether it was concurred in or not. Mr. ROBERTSON made a brief explanation. He said his object was to defeat the whole provision as it stood. Mr. EVERETT thought it would defeat the provision altogether, and he should therefore vote against it. Mr. McKAY said the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia was substantially the same as the proviso of the gentleman from New York, [Mr. CAMBRELENG.] He was opposed to the notion that the public money is in the Treasury as soon as paid to the collector; for, if so, that would make the Treasurer of the United States liable for all loss, error, or deficiency. It was not in the Treasury till it was deposited. Mr. WISE was certain his friend from North Carolina [Mr. McKAY] was incorrect, or that provision of the constitution Mr. W. had before quoted, viz: that no money should be taken from the Treasury without the appropriation by law, was a nullity. He maintained that the Treasury was a unity, without any space between the first receipt and the deposite, and between the Treasurer and the disbursing officer. The public money was not paid to the collector as an individual, but, being due to the United States, was paid to one of its own officers. He expressed his surprise that the gentleman from North Carolina, for whose opinion on such subjects Mr. W. entertained a high respect, should have advanced such a construction as he had. The collector, receiver, treasurer, disburser, &c., were all officers of the Treasury, acting as checks on each other, accountable from the one to the other, and each could be sued on their bond. If this was not so, the constitution could be set aside; for if there was a point of time when the public money was not in the Treasury, then could it be appropriated without law during that intermission. Mr. LANE understood the Treasury to be at bottom an ideal thing, and he held the receivers and deposite banks to be the agents of the Treasury. The receivers were no longer liable than for the time the money was actually in their hands; and so with the deposite banks. He held the money to be in the Treasury whenever it was received by one of its agents. If Mr. VANDERPOEL dissented entirely from the doctrine of the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. WISE.] that doctrine was sound, the moment the money was in the hands of the collector, it was in the hands of the Treasurer, and he was responsible. Mr. WISE did not say so. He said the money was then in the Treasury, and the Treasury officer was that instant responsible for it, as was the Treasurer, when it came under his control. Mr. VANDERPOEL said the gentleman's doctrine still involved an incongruity, because he would make the money to be in the possession of a Department, and yet the chief officer of that Department in no way responsible. Mr. V. held that, after the money was once in the Treasury, neither the Treasurer, the Secretary, nor |