![iOS 9 Programming Fundamentals with Swift, Second Edition
by Matt Neuburg
Copyright © 2016 Matt Neuburg. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America.
Published by O’Reilly Media, Inc., 1005 Gravenstein Highway North, Sebastopol, CA 95472.
O’Reilly books may be purchased for educational, business, or sales promotional use. Online editions are
also available for most titles (http://safaribooksonline.com). For more information, contact our corporate/
institutional sales department: 800-998-9938 or corporate@oreilly.com.
Editor: Rachel Roumeliotis
Production Editor: Kristen Brown
Proofreader: O’Reilly Production Services
Indexer: Matt Neuburg
Cover Designer: Karen Montgomery
Interior Designer: David Futato
Illustrator: Matt Neuburg
April 2015: First Edition
October 2015: Second Edition
Revision History for the Second Edition:
2015-09-23: First release
See http://oreilly.com/catalog/errata.csp?isbn=9781491936771 for release details.
The O’Reilly logo is a registered trademark of O’Reilly Media, Inc. iOS 9 Programming Fundamentals with
Swift, the image of a harp seal, and related trade dress are trademarks of O’Reilly Media, Inc.
While the publisher and the author have used good faith efforts to ensure that the information and instruc‐
tions contained in this work are accurate, the publisher and the author disclaim all responsibility for errors
or omissions, including without limitation responsibility for damages resulting from the use of or reliance
on this work. Use of the information and instructions contained in this work is at your own risk. If any code
samples or other technology this work contains or describes is subject to open source licenses or the intel‐
lectual property rights of others, it is your responsibility to ensure that your use thereof complies with such
licenses and/or rights.
ISBN: 978-1-491-93677-1
[LSI]](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/21834-250430235007-9bf6321d/85/iOS-9-Programming-Fundamentals-with-Swift-Swift-Xcode-and-Cocoa-Basics-2nd-Edition-Matt-Neuburg-9-320.jpg)
![Sec. 1. Be it enacted, c., That from and after the —— day of ——
next, so much of any act, or acts, as lays a duty on imported salt,
be, and the same hereby is, repealed, and from and after the day
aforesaid, salt shall be imported into the United States free of duty.
Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That, from and after the first day
of January next, so much of any act, or acts, as allows a bounty on
exported salt provisions, and pickled fish, in lieu of drawback of the
duties on the salt employed in curing the same, and so much of any
act, or acts, as makes an allowance to the owners and crews of
fishing vessels, in lieu of drawback of the duties paid on the salt
used by the same, shall be, and the same hereby is, repealed.[40]
Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That so much of the act, passed
on the 25th day of March, 1804, entitled An act further to protect
the commerce and seamen of the United States against the Barbary
Powers, as is contained in the first section of the said act, be, and
the same hereby is, continued in force until the end of the next
session of Congress, and no longer.
Mr. Quincy moved so to amend the first section as to repeal the act
laying a duty on salt, additional to that originally imposed, so as to
take off at present the duty of eight cents a bushel. He said he was
of the opinion that taking off the whole duty on salt would have an
injurious effect. A difference of twenty cents on the bushel would
operate very seriously on those who had already made shipments. It
was part of the duty of a legislator to avoid making such sudden
changes as tended to destroy the confidence of the mercantile world
in the stability of the laws. Whenever changes were made, they
ought, in his opinion, to be gradual. Although he considered the
general effect of this measure most important, yet, by too sudden an
operation, it might affect a respectable class of individuals very
injuriously. He would state the effect which he apprehended it would
have. Suppose the repeal should take effect on the first day of July.
A cargo of salt generally averages about four thousand bushels; the
prime cost at Liverpool was about eleven cents a bushel. The cost of](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/21834-250430235007-9bf6321d/85/iOS-9-Programming-Fundamentals-with-Swift-Swift-Xcode-and-Cocoa-Basics-2nd-Edition-Matt-Neuburg-34-320.jpg)
![these surpluses be appropriated, and the whole surplus of impost,
after the entire discharge of the public debt, and during those
intervals when the purposes of war shall not call for them? Shall we
suppress the impost, and give that advantage to foreign over
domestic manufactures? On a few articles, of more general and
necessary use, the suppression, in due season, will doubtless be
right, but the great mass of the articles on which impost is paid are
foreign luxuries, purchased by those only who are rich enough to
afford themselves the use of them. Their patriotism would certainly
prefer its continuance and application to the great purposes of the
public education, roads, rivers, canals,[41] and such other objects of
public improvement as it may be thought proper to add to the
constitutional enumeration of federal powers. By these operations
new channels of communication will be opened between the States;
the lines of separation will disappear; their interests will be identified
and their Union cemented by new and indissoluble ties. Education is
here placed among the articles of public care, not that it would be
proposed to take its ordinary branches out of the hands of private
enterprise, which manages so much better all the concerns to which
it is equal; but a public institution can alone supply those sciences
which, though rarely called for, are yet necessary to complete the
circle, all the parts of which contribute to the improvement of the
country, and some of them to its preservation. The subject is now
proposed for the consideration of Congress, because, if approved by
the time the State Legislature shall have deliberated on this
extension of the federal trusts, and the laws shall be passed and
other arrangements made for their execution, the necessary funds
will be on hand, and without employment. I suppose an amendment
to the constitution, by consent of the States, necessary, because the
objects now recommended are not among those enumerated in the
constitution, and to which it permits the public moneys to be
applied.
The present consideration of a national establishment, for
education particularly, is rendered proper by this circumstance; also
that, if Congress, approving the proposition, shall yet think it more](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/21834-250430235007-9bf6321d/85/iOS-9-Programming-Fundamentals-with-Swift-Swift-Xcode-and-Cocoa-Basics-2nd-Edition-Matt-Neuburg-55-320.jpg)
iOS 9 Programming Fundamentals with Swift Swift Xcode and Cocoa Basics 2nd Edition Matt Neuburg
- 1. iOS 9 Programming Fundamentals with Swift Swift Xcode and Cocoa Basics 2nd Edition Matt Neuburg download https://ebookultra.com/download/ios-9-programming-fundamentals- with-swift-swift-xcode-and-cocoa-basics-2nd-edition-matt-neuburg/ Explore and download more ebooks or textbooks at ebookultra.com
- 2. Here are some recommended products for you. Click the link to download, or explore more at ebookultra.com Programming iOS 6 3rd Edition Fundamentals of iPhone iPad and iPod touch Development Matt Neuburg https://ebookultra.com/download/programming-ios-6-3rd-edition- fundamentals-of-iphone-ipad-and-ipod-touch-development-matt-neuburg/ Programming iOS 10 Dive Deep into Views View Controllers and Frameworks 7th Edition Matt Neuburg https://ebookultra.com/download/programming-ios-10-dive-deep-into- views-view-controllers-and-frameworks-7th-edition-matt-neuburg/ iOS 8 SDK Development Creating iPhone and iPad Apps with Swift The Pragmatic Programmers 2nd Edition Adamson https://ebookultra.com/download/ios-8-sdk-development-creating-iphone- and-ipad-apps-with-swift-the-pragmatic-programmers-2nd-edition- adamson/ The Basic Writings of Jonathan Swift Jonathan Swift https://ebookultra.com/download/the-basic-writings-of-jonathan-swift- jonathan-swift/
- 3. Learn Swift on the Mac For OS X and iOS 2015th Edition Waqar Malik https://ebookultra.com/download/learn-swift-on-the-mac-for-os-x-and- ios-2015th-edition-waqar-malik/ Process Selection 2nd Edition 2003 K G Swift https://ebookultra.com/download/process-selection-2nd- edition-2003-k-g-swift/ Tom Swift and his Submarine Boat The fourth book in the Tom Swift series Victor Appleton https://ebookultra.com/download/tom-swift-and-his-submarine-boat-the- fourth-book-in-the-tom-swift-series-victor-appleton/ Bridge Team Management 2nd Revised edition Edition Aj Swift https://ebookultra.com/download/bridge-team-management-2nd-revised- edition-edition-aj-swift/ Swift 2 Blueprints 1st Edition Costa https://ebookultra.com/download/swift-2-blueprints-1st-edition-costa/
- 5. iOS 9 Programming Fundamentals with Swift Swift Xcode and Cocoa Basics 2nd Edition Matt Neuburg Digital Instant Download Author(s): Matt Neuburg ISBN(s): 9781491936771, 1491936770 Edition: 2 File Details: PDF, 4.33 MB Year: 2015 Language: english
- 6. Matt Neuburg iOS 9 Programming Fundamentals with Swift SWIFT, XCODE, AND COCOA BASICS C o v e r s i O S 9 , X c o d e 7 , a n d S w i f t 2 . 0
- 7. MOBILE DEVELOPMENT / IOS iOS 9 Programming Fundamentals with Swift ISBN: 978-1-491-93677-1 US $49.99 CAN $57.99 “ Neuburg is my favorite programming book writer, period.” —John Gruber Daring Fireball Matt Neuburg has a PhD in Classics and has taught at many colleges and universities. He has served as editor of MacTech magazine and as contrib- uting editor for TidBITS. He has writ- ten many OS X and iOS applications. Previous books include Programming iOS 8, REALbasic: The Definitive Guide, and AppleScript: The Definitive Guide. Twitter: @oreillymedia facebook.com/oreilly Move into iOS development by getting a firm grasp of its fundamentals, including the Xcode IDE, the Cocoa Touch framework, and Swift 2.0—the latest version of Apple's acclaimed programming language. With this thoroughly updated guide, you'll learn Swift’s object-oriented concepts, understand how to use Apple's development tools, and discover how Cocoa provides the underlying functionality iOS apps need to have. ■ ■ Explore Swift’s object-oriented concepts: variables and functions, scopes and namespaces, object types and instances ■ ■ Become familiar with built-in Swift types such as numbers, strings, ranges, tuples, Optionals, arrays, dictionaries, and sets ■ ■ Learn how to declare, instantiate, and customize Swift object types—enums, structs, and classes ■ ■ Discover powerful Swift features such as protocols and generics ■ ■ Catch up on Swift 2.0 innovations: option sets, protocol extensions, error handling, guard statements, availability checks, and more ■ ■ Tour the lifecycle of an Xcode project from inception to App Store ■ ■ Create app interfaces with nibs and the nib editor, Interface Builder ■ ■ Understand Cocoa’s event-driven model and its major design patterns and features ■ ■ Find out how Swift communicates with Cocoa’s C and Objective-C APIs Once you master the fundamentals, you'll be ready to tackle the details of iOS app development with author Matt Neuburg's companion guide, Programming iOS 9. Programming iOS 9 978-1-491-93685-6
- 8. Matt Neuburg Boston SECOND EDITION iOS 9 Programming Fundamentals with Swift Swift, Xcode, and Cocoa Basics
- 9. iOS 9 Programming Fundamentals with Swift, Second Edition by Matt Neuburg Copyright © 2016 Matt Neuburg. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. Published by O’Reilly Media, Inc., 1005 Gravenstein Highway North, Sebastopol, CA 95472. O’Reilly books may be purchased for educational, business, or sales promotional use. Online editions are also available for most titles (http://safaribooksonline.com). For more information, contact our corporate/ institutional sales department: 800-998-9938 or [email protected]. Editor: Rachel Roumeliotis Production Editor: Kristen Brown Proofreader: O’Reilly Production Services Indexer: Matt Neuburg Cover Designer: Karen Montgomery Interior Designer: David Futato Illustrator: Matt Neuburg April 2015: First Edition October 2015: Second Edition Revision History for the Second Edition: 2015-09-23: First release See http://oreilly.com/catalog/errata.csp?isbn=9781491936771 for release details. The O’Reilly logo is a registered trademark of O’Reilly Media, Inc. iOS 9 Programming Fundamentals with Swift, the image of a harp seal, and related trade dress are trademarks of O’Reilly Media, Inc. While the publisher and the author have used good faith efforts to ensure that the information and instruc‐ tions contained in this work are accurate, the publisher and the author disclaim all responsibility for errors or omissions, including without limitation responsibility for damages resulting from the use of or reliance on this work. Use of the information and instructions contained in this work is at your own risk. If any code samples or other technology this work contains or describes is subject to open source licenses or the intel‐ lectual property rights of others, it is your responsibility to ensure that your use thereof complies with such licenses and/or rights. ISBN: 978-1-491-93677-1 [LSI]
- 10. Table of Contents Preface. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii Part I. Language 1. The Architecture of Swift. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Ground of Being 3 Everything Is an Object? 5 Three Flavors of Object Type 6 Variables 6 Functions 8 The Structure of a Swift File 9 Scope and Lifetime 11 Object Members 12 Namespaces 13 Modules 13 Instances 14 Why Instances? 16 self 19 Privacy 20 Design 21 Object Types and APIs 22 Instance Creation, Scope, and Lifetime 24 Summary and Conclusion 25 2. Functions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Function Parameters and Return Value 27 Void Return Type and Parameters 30 iii
- 11. Function Signature 32 External Parameter Names 32 Overloading 35 Default Parameter Values 36 Variadic Parameters 37 Ignored Parameters 38 Modifiable Parameters 38 Function In Function 42 Recursion 44 Function As Value 44 Anonymous Functions 47 Define-and-Call 52 Closures 53 How Closures Improve Code 55 Function Returning Function 56 Closure Setting a Captured Variable 59 Closure Preserving Its Captured Environment 59 Curried Functions 61 3. Variables and Simple Types. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Variable Scope and Lifetime 63 Variable Declaration 65 Computed Initializer 67 Computed Variables 68 Setter Observers 71 Lazy Initialization 73 Built-In Simple Types 75 Bool 76 Numbers 77 String 85 Character 89 Range 93 Tuple 95 Optional 98 4. Object Types. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Object Type Declarations and Features 111 Initializers 113 Properties 119 Methods 122 iv | Table of Contents
- 12. Subscripts 124 Nested Object Types 126 Instance References 127 Enums 129 Case With Fixed Value 130 Case With Typed Value 131 Enum Initializers 132 Enum Properties 134 Enum Methods 135 Why Enums? 136 Structs 137 Struct Initializers, Properties, and Methods 137 Struct As Namespace 139 Classes 139 Value Types and Reference Types 140 Subclass and Superclass 144 Class Initializers 150 Class Deinitializer 158 Class Properties and Methods 159 Polymorphism 161 Casting 164 Type Reference 168 Protocols 173 Why Protocols? 174 Protocol Type Testing and Casting 176 Declaring a Protocol 177 Optional Protocol Members 179 Class Protocol 180 Implicitly Required Initializers 181 Literal Convertibles 183 Generics 184 Generic Declarations 186 Type Constraints 188 Explicit Specialization 190 Associated Type Chains 191 Additional Constraints 194 Extensions 197 Extending Object Types 198 Extending Protocols 200 Extending Generics 203 Table of Contents | v
- 13. Umbrella Types 205 AnyObject 205 AnyClass 208 Any 209 Collection Types 210 Array 210 Dictionary 224 Set 229 5. Flow Control and More. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 Flow Control 235 Branching 236 Loops 248 Jumping 253 Operators 265 Privacy 268 Private Declaration 269 Public Declaration 271 Privacy Rules 272 Introspection 272 Memory Management 273 Weak References 275 Unowned References 276 Weak and Unowned References in Anonymous Functions 278 Memory Management of Protocol-Typed References 281 Part II. IDE 6. Anatomy of an Xcode Project. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285 New Project 285 The Project Window 288 The Navigator Pane 289 The Utilities Pane 295 The Editor 296 The Project File and Its Dependents 299 The Target 301 Build Phases 302 Build Settings 304 Configurations 305 vi | Table of Contents
- 14. Schemes and Destinations 306 From Project to Running App 309 Build Settings 311 Property List Settings 312 Nib Files 313 Additional Resources 313 Code Files and the App Launch Process 316 Frameworks and SDKs 321 Renaming Parts of a Project 324 7. Nib Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325 The Nib Editor Interface 326 Document Outline 328 Canvas 330 Inspectors and Libraries 332 Nib Loading 334 When Nibs Are Loaded 334 Manual Nib Loading 336 Connections 338 Outlets 338 The Nib Owner 340 Automatically Configured Nibs 343 Misconfigured Outlets 344 Deleting an Outlet 345 More Ways to Create Outlets 346 Outlet Collections 349 Action Connections 350 More Ways to Create Actions 352 Misconfigured Actions 353 Connections Between Nibs — Not! 354 Additional Configuration of Nib-Based Instances 354 8. Documentation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359 The Documentation Window 360 Class Documentation Pages 362 Sample Code 365 Quick Help 366 Symbols 367 Header Files 368 Internet Resources 369 Table of Contents | vii
- 15. 9. Life Cycle of a Project. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371 Device Architecture and Conditional Code 371 Backward Compatibility 372 Device Type 374 Version Control 375 Editing and Navigating Your Code 377 Autocompletion 378 Snippets 380 Fix-it and Live Syntax Checking 381 Navigation 382 Finding 384 Running in the Simulator 385 Debugging 386 Caveman Debugging 386 The Xcode Debugger 389 Testing 395 Clean 401 Running on a Device 402 Running Without a Developer Program Membership 403 Obtaining a Developer Program Membership 404 Obtaining a Certificate 405 Obtaining a Development Provisioning Profile 407 Running the App 408 Profile and Device Management 409 Profiling 409 Gauges 410 Instruments 410 Localization 413 Localizing the Info.plist 414 Localizing a Nib File 416 Localizing Code Strings 418 Localizing With XML Files 420 Archiving and Distribution 422 Ad Hoc Distribution 424 Final App Preparations 426 Icons in the App 426 Other Icons 427 Launch Images 428 Screenshots and Video Previews 429 Property List Settings 430 viii | Table of Contents
- 16. Submission to the App Store 431 Part III. Cocoa 10. Cocoa Classes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 437 Subclassing 437 Categories and Extensions 440 How Swift Uses Extensions 441 How You Use Extensions 441 How Cocoa Uses Categories 442 Protocols 443 Informal Protocols 445 Optional Methods 446 Some Foundation Classes 448 Useful Structs and Constants 448 NSString and Friends 450 NSDate and Friends 452 NSNumber 454 NSValue 455 NSData 456 Equality and Comparison 457 NSIndexSet 458 NSArray and NSMutableArray 459 NSDictionary and NSMutableDictionary 461 NSSet and Friends 462 NSNull 463 Immutable and Mutable 463 Property Lists 464 Accessors, Properties, and Key–Value Coding 465 Swift Accessors 466 Key–Value Coding 467 Uses of Key–Value Coding 468 KVC and Outlets 470 Key Paths 470 Array Accessors 471 The Secret Life of NSObject 472 11. Cocoa Events. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 475 Reasons for Events 475 Table of Contents | ix
- 17. Subclassing 476 Notifications 477 Receiving a Notification 478 Unregistering 481 Posting a Notification 482 NSTimer 483 Delegation 484 Cocoa Delegation 484 Implementing Delegation 486 Data Sources 488 Actions 488 The Responder Chain 492 Deferring Responsibility 493 Nil-Targeted Actions 493 Key–Value Observing 494 Swamped by Events 498 Delayed Performance 501 12. Memory Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 505 Principles of Cocoa Memory Management 505 Rules of Cocoa Memory Management 506 What ARC Is and What It Does 508 How Cocoa Objects Manage Memory 508 Autorelease Pool 509 Memory Management of Instance Properties 511 Retain Cycles and Weak References 512 Unusual Memory Management Situations 514 Nib Loading and Memory Management 519 Memory Management of CFTypeRefs 520 Property Memory Management Policies 521 Debugging Memory Management Mistakes 524 13. Communication Between Objects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 525 Visibility by Instantiation 526 Visibility by Relationship 528 Global Visibility 529 Notifications and KVO 530 Model–View–Controller 531 A. C, Objective-C, and Swift. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 535 x | Table of Contents
- 18. Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 561 Table of Contents | xi
- 20. Preface On June 2, 2014, Apple’s WWDC keynote address ended with a shocking announce‐ ment: “We have a new programming language.” This came as a huge surprise to the developer community, which was accustomed to Objective-C, warts and all, and doubt‐ ed that Apple could ever possibly relieve them from the weight of its venerable legacy. The developer community, it appeared, had been wrong. Having picked themselves up off the floor, developers immediately began to examine this new language — Swift — studying it, critiquing it, and deciding whether to use it. My own first move was to translate all my existing iOS apps into Swift; this was enough to convince me that, for all its faults, Swift deserved to be adopted by new students of iOSprogramming,andthatmybooks,therefore,shouldhenceforthassumethatreaders are using Swift. The Swift language is designed from the ground up with these salient features: Object-orientation Swift is a modern, object-oriented language. It is purely object-oriented: “Every‐ thing is an object.” Clarity Swift is easy to read and easy to write, with minimal syntactic sugar and few hidden shortcuts. Its syntax is clear, consistent, and explicit. Safety Swift enforces strong typing to ensure that it knows, and that you know, what the type of every object reference is at every moment. Economy Swift is a fairly small language, providing some basic types and functionalities and no more. The rest must be provided by your code, or by libraries of code that you use — such as Cocoa. xiii
- 21. Random documents with unrelated content Scribd suggests to you:
- 22. is more than a third of the whole sum appropriated, and it may be expended on repairs or any other item of contingent expenditure. It is enormous. But withhold the appropriation, and where are you? The expense may be incurred, and the Government called on to make good the deficiency; and there the business will end. With regard to the sum requisite for the repair of a frigate, her situation between this and the next year cannot be foreseen. The Secretary may have estimated $30,000 as sufficient to repair any one frigate as they now stand; but they may be placed in such a condition as to require a much larger sum. But I am against the amendment, said Mr. R., not only for these, but for other reasons. I will never consent to legislate in such a way as to make it appear that we did legislate intelligently, when in fact we do not. If I can be satisfied that $30,000 will be sufficient for the repair of a frigate, I may be induced to vote for it. But even this would be unnecessary. For, after all, the business must be confided to the Head of the Department; and he will be a better judge of the sum required for the repair of a vessel than we are. If he cannot be trusted, we ought, in my opinion, either to refuse the appropriation altogether, or take a very different step from that now proposed. For these reasons I am unwilling to appear to act understandingly on a subject which I know nothing about. Mr. Eppes.—When I made this motion, it was under the impression that what is correct in private, is also correct in public conduct. We know that, when a vessel owned by a merchant gets in a certain state, it is more advisable to sell than to repair her. I do not know whether I have fixed the proper sum. All I wish to try is, whether the United States are disposed to repair at all events their frigates, whatever their state may be, or limit the sum, after expending which they shall be abandoned. I confess, however, that I am not anxious on this point. I merely wish to try the sense of the House. On agreeing to Mr. E.’s motion, the House divided—ayes 38, noes 57.
- 23. Mr. D. R. Williams.—The curtailing Navy expenses may be unpopular, but I conceive it to be right. For that purpose I will renew the motion I offered in committee. I am of opinion that all the expenditures of this department should pass in review before the House. When I first came to Washington, I went to the navy yard. I there saw an elegant building going on. I inquired under what appropriation this was authorized, and was answered, under the appropriation for contingent expenses. I remarked other expenditures, and received the same information. These expenditures may be all proper; but I think that every gentleman on this floor ought to be enabled to tell his constituents how the public money is expended. Talk to them of contingencies, and they will understand as little of the term as of land in the moon. Mr. W. concluded by moving to strike out “and other contingent expenses,” and calling the yeas and nays. Mr. Smilie said that no gentleman would censure him for attachment to the Navy. He never had been, nor was he now attached to a Navy. But the situation in which they were placed was well known. If there was time, he should be glad to have every item of expenditure produced by the proper officer, that they might know how to act. He was fully aware that, in the Navy Department, it was more difficult to anticipate the expenses than in any other. Though, therefore, he was no friend to a Navy, as it had not been thought proper to abandon the establishment, he considered it right to make such grants as were necessary for its support. If it was early in the session, or if he thought it possible to get the information, he should vote for calling for it. But as they were reduced to the necessity of saying at once whether they would, or would not support the Navy, he should be in favor of making this grant. The yeas and nays having been taken on Mr. D. R. Williams’s motion, were—yeas 25, nays 86. Mr. D. R. Williams moved to recommit the bill to a Committee of the Whole, with the view of obtaining information from the Secretary of the Navy before it was definitively acted on.
- 24. The motion was disagreed to—ayes 41, noes 56; when the bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading without a division. The motion to read the bill a third time on Saturday was carried— ayes 55, when the following motion, made by Mr. D. R. Williams, was agreed to without a division: Resolved, That the Secretary of the Navy be directed to lay before this House an estimate of the respective sums necessary to be appropriated for repair of vessels, store rent, pay of armorers, freight, and contingent expenses of the Navy for the year 1806. Friday, April 11. Exclusion of Military and Naval Officers from Civil Employment. The bill to prohibit officers of the Army and Navy of the United States from holding or exercising any civil office, was read a third time. Mr. Gregg said he never found himself involved in greater difficulty. He was in favor of the principle involved in the bill, and yet he could not vote for its passage. He believed that it was a correct principle that civil and military offices should be kept distinct, and he wished the constitution had prohibited the union. In relation to the individual on whom it was mentioned yesterday this law was to operate, he was satisfied it would be best if he could be removed from one of the offices he held; and if such a course had been pursued, he should have been in favor of destroying the office of brigadier-general to get rid of the officer. The effect of this resolution would be to take from a man an office which he held under the constitution. This power they did not possess. The only constitutional way to effect the object was to destroy the office. He would agree likewise to amend the constitution, so as to declare the union of civil and military office incompatible, or to a law providing
- 25. that after a certain time no person should hold two such offices; and he should, if practicable, be for doing away the office of Governor of Louisiana, because he believed the person holding that office was, by his course of proceedings, producing a disturbance in the Territory. But although he entertained a favorable opinion of the principle of the bill, and would wish to remove that gentleman from one of the offices he held, yet he must vote against the bill, as it went to the unconstitutional removal of an officer. Mr. Smilie thought the passage of this bill involved a principle of a very serious nature. As to the abstract principle involved in the bill, he did not dispute its correctness, or that it ought to have been a part of the constitution. But the question was, whether they had a right by a legislative act, to prejudice any other branch of the Government. They were not in his opinion warranted in travelling out of their own sphere to remove existing evils. There was but one way in which the constitution provided for the removal of a public officer. It says “the President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Here was the true and only sphere in which the House could move. If the constitution did not give the right of removal in any other way, it did not exist; and if they undertook by a legislative act to remove a man constitutionally appointed, who would pretend to say what mischief might not result from it? For these reasons he should vote against the bill. Mr. Quincy said it appeared to him that one of the arguments urged by gentlemen against this bill was fallacious—that which considered it an invasion of the rights of the Executive. This argument went on the assumption that the President would necessarily sign the bill sent to him, which might or might not be the fact. If he accedes to it, the argument of gentlemen falls to the ground; and if it shall be returned, it will then be time enough to discuss the constitutional principle. With regard to the general expediency of passing such a bill, the strongest arguments would be found in favor of it on the page of history. If history proved any
- 26. thing, it was that the condition of those was most degraded who lived under the colonial governments of Republics. This was amply proved by the annals of the Carthaginian and Roman Republics. The territory under contemplation was a kind of colonial government, and might in the course of time be a powerful engine in the hands of the Executive. He wished, therefore, for a separation of the civil and military powers which might arise under it. Mr. Smilie said if the question was what was most convenient or best, he should have no difficulty in agreeing with the gentleman from Massachusetts. But it rested on higher ground—on what was constitutional. If he had a right to make the constitution, he would have no hesitation in separating the civil and military powers. But he could not forget the occurrences which had taken place in the State he had the honor to represent in part. In that State there had been but a single branch of the Legislature without any Executive veto on the passage of the laws. He had seen that Government destroyed by sweeping away the Executive power before the irresistible authority of the Legislature, and he had seen the people obliged, from this circumstance, to give up that constitution and frame a new one. The measure under consideration was of the same kind. The constitutional powers of the Executive ought not to be encroached upon, unless the object was to produce confusion. He had seen the effects of such measures, and deprecated them. You may, said Mr. S., abolish the office, and the officer falls with it; but in no other way, while the office continues, can you remove the officer except by impeachment. Shall we, then, in order to get rid of a man who may not have done right (and as for myself I am ready to answer I have no affection for the man) go into a new scene, the length of which we cannot foresee? This principle once established may lead to any thing; it may lead to a destruction of the powers of the Executive altogether. I am as tenacious of the powers of the Legislature as any man, but I believe the powers of the Executive to be equally necessary. Indeed, I think there is more danger to be apprehended from the overwhelming power of the Legislature, than from the
- 27. powers of the Executive. For the Legislature is so powerful that there can be little danger of the Executive encroaching upon it. Mr. Eppes.—If I took the same view of the operation of this law with the gentleman from Pennsylvania, I should certainly give it my negative. As, however, I voted for the resolution on which it is founded, and consider the law in conformity with the resolution, I will assign, in a few words, the reasons which will govern my vote. We have been told that all the departments of Government are independent of each other. No man denies the correctness of this principle. Let us not interfere with the constitutional rights of the other departments, nor abandon our own. The Executive has by the constitution the right of nominating for office any citizen of the United States, whether an officer of the Army and Navy, or not. This being a constitutional right, he certainly cannot be deprived of it by law; the right remains, and may be exercised if the law passes; the law merely severs the civil and military offices, and leaves the military officer to decide whether he will vacate his military command by holding or accepting a civil office; the Executive will have the same right to appoint—the individual will have the same right to accept the civil office as heretofore, but the acceptance vacates his command in the Army or Navy. If, then, the Executive right to appoint, and the right of the officer to accept, remains after the passage of this law, how can gentlemen contend that the constitutional right of appointment is narrowed? All the difficulty on the present occasion arises from the law being made to bear on the constitutional right of appointment. It is intended to operate only on offices in the Army or Navy which are created by law, to the tenure of which we may annex such conditions as the public good may require. Under the constitution we have a right to prescribe rules for the government of the Army or Navy. In passing this law we add a new clause to the articles of war, viz: That an officer of the Army or Navy shall not hold or accept a civil office. Do gentlemen really suppose that we have no right to make this rule? If we can say that an officer shall not get drunk, that he shall have short hair, a coat of a certain form; that he shall not absent himself from his duty; or if
- 28. we can in fact annex any other condition calculated to ensure to the public his services, why may we not declare by law that he shall not hold or accept a civil office, he shall forfeit his military command? The public welfare is the basis of the rules for the government of the Army and Navy; we have a right to prescribe such rules as the public good requires, and it is our duty to establish such as will ensure to us the services of our military officers in that station to which they are appointed. But we are told we are about to remove from office a civil officer by law. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has read the clause of the constitution which provides for the removal of civil officers by impeachment. This law is not to operate on civil but on military officers; civil officers, it is true, are removed by impeachment— military officers by such forms as we think proper to prescribe by law; the operation of this law will be precisely the same with any other new rule prescribed for the government of the Army or Navy. Suppose we were to pass a law that any officer found drunk after the 1st of July next shall forfeit his office—his having been drunk before would not subject him to the penalty of the law—but his being drunk after the first of July next would deprive him of his office. Apply this to the case of a civil officer. An officer of the Army or Navy having accepted a civil office, or holding a civil office, does not at present vacate his military office; the reason is obvious—there is no law against it. If, however, after the first of July next, he accepts or continues to hold a civil office, he forfeits his military command under the new article of war which this law establishes. The law severs the two offices, declares them incompatible with each other, and leaves the individual free to make his election. As to the general principle that the civil and military ought to be separate and distinct, I have no doubt. If the principle is correct, the law ought to extend to all cases, not only such as may hereafter arise, but to those which at present exist. Mr. Stanford supported, and Messrs. Findlay and Sloan opposed the bill; when the question was taken by yeas and nays on the passage of the bill—yeas 64, nays 34, as follows:
- 29. Yeas.—Willis Alston, Isaac Anderson, Burwell Bassett, George M. Bedinger, Silas Betton, John Blake, jr., Thomas Blount, William Butler, Levi Casey, John Claiborne, Christopher Clark, Joseph Clay, Matthew Clay, John Dawson, Elias Earle, Peter Early, James Elliot, Caleb Ellis, William Ely, John W. Eppes, James M. Garnett, Peterson Goodwyn, Edwin Gray, Seth Hastings, David Holmes, John G. Jackson, Walter Jones, Michael Leib, Matthew Lyon, Duncan McFarland, Robert Marion, Josiah Masters, Nicholas R. Moore, Thomas Moore, Jeremiah Morrow, John Morrow, Gurdon S. Mumford, Thomas Newton, jr., Gideon Olin, Josiah Quincy, John Randolph, Thomas M. Randolph, John Rea of Pennsylvania, Jacob Richards, Thomas Sammons, Thomas Sanford, Martin G. Schuneman, John Cotton Smith, John Smith, Samuel Smith, Thomas Spalding, Richard Stanford, Lewis B. Sturges, Samuel Taggart, Benjamin Tallmadge, Philip R. Thompson, Thomas W. Thompson, Uri Tracy, Abram Trigg, Robert Whitehill, David R. Williams, Alexander Wilson, Richard Wynn, and Joseph Winston. Nays.—David Bard, Joseph Barker, Barnabas Bidwell, John Chandler, Jacob Crowninshield, Richard Cutts, Ezra Darby, Ebenezer Elmer, William Findlay, John Fowler, Andrew Gregg, Isaiah L. Green, James Kelly, William McCreery, Jeremiah Nelson, Timothy Pitkin, jr., John Pugh, John Rea of Tennessee, John Russell, Peter Sailly, Ebenezer Seaver, James Sloan, John Smilie, Henry Southard, Joseph Stanton, David Thomas, Philip Van Cortlandt, Killian K. Van Rensselaer, Joseph B. Varnum, Peleg Wadsworth, John Whitehill, Eliphalet Wickes, Marmaduke Williams, and Nathan Williams. Saturday, April 12. Naval Appropriations. The bill making appropriations for the support of the Navy was read the third time.
- 30. Mr. J. C. Smith moved to recommit it, for the purpose of restoring the provision for completing the marine barracks at the city of Washington, the amount of expense attending which, he understood, had been already partly expended. The motion to recommit the bill having obtained—yeas 54—the House went into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. J. C. Smith in the Chair. Mr. J. Clay observed, that since the House had agreed to strike out the provision for completing the barracks, he had understood that more money had been applied to this purpose than had been appropriated, and that it had been drawn from the private funds of one of the officers, under an understanding with the Head of the Department. He, therefore, moved to restore the item “for completing the marine barracks at the city of Washington, three thousand five hundred dollars.” Mr. D. R. Williams said he should not make any objection to this motion. He would only call the attention of the House to the regard they had heretofore manifested to specific appropriations, under the hope that something would be done to circumscribe contingencies. He believed that this particular sum had been expended much to the interest of the country. Mr. Leib said, he was not very fond of making appropriations in this way—for particular officers to run into unauthorized expenditures, and then to call on Congress to make good the deficiency. Is this a provision for completing the house for the commandant? Is that the marine barracks? If not, then under what appropriation is it made? Is it under that of contingencies? Look at the buildings at the navy yard; is all this expense incurred out of the contingent fund? If it is not, it is not authorized by law. Mr. L. said, he did not know that he should make any objection to this item; but he thought it full time to check this loose mode of procedure. The question was then put, and the motion of Mr. J. Clay was agreed to without a division.
- 31. Mr. D. R. Williams said, he wished so to modify that part of the bill which appropriated four hundred and eleven thousand nine hundred and fifty dollars “for repair of vessels, store rent, pay of armorers, freight, and other contingent expenses,” as to separate the items; to give the Department all it asked, but fix a particular sum to each item. Mr. Conrad opposed the motion, and remarked that the expenditure under one item might fall short of the sum appropriated, which would require that the deficiency should be made up from the surplus of another. Mr. Dana said this amendment was warranted by the former usage of the House, and the message of the President of the United States. At the first session of the seventh Congress the President had observed that— “In our care, too, of the public contributions intrusted to our direction, it would be prudent to multiply barriers against their dissipation, by appropriating specific sums to every specific purpose susceptible of definition; by disallowing all applications of money, varying from the appropriation in object, or transcending it in amount; by reducing the undefined field of contingencies, and thereby circumscribing discretionary powers over money.” This opinion had been given five years ago; and they might now infer that it had been found that it could not be carried into effect, as to the military or naval service. Mr. D. said he considered the gentleman from South Carolina as bringing up this question directly before the House: Will you adhere to specific appropriations, or will you abandon them? Mr. D. said he had never been in favor of them in relation to the Navy or Army. The question was then taken on the motion of Mr. D. R. Williams, which was disagreed to—yeas 32, nays 51—when the committee rose, and reported the bill, which was passed without a division.
- 32. Monday, April 14. Duty on Salt. Mr. J. Randolph said he was about to call the attention of the House to a subject which he should not have probably brought into view, but for the change wrought in the state of the revenue, in consequence of the peace with Tripoli. Among the different articles from which moneys were drawn, there was none so heavily burdened as salt; and it would be recollected that it was one of the necessaries of life, and an article, the free use and consumption of which was of material importance to the agriculture of the country. Two acts had been passed laying a duty on this article. It was no new thing to wish—it was, indeed, extremely desirable to diminish, if not to take off this duty, and for that purpose he submitted the following resolution: Resolved, That the Committee of Ways and Means be instructed to inquire into the expediency of repealing so much of any act as lays a duty on salt; and to report such provision as may, in their opinion, be calculated to meet the deficiency occasioned by that repeal. Mr. Thomas said the Committee of Ways and Means, of which the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. J. Randolph,) who has made the motion, was and still is Chairman, were instructed by this House in the early part of last session, on a motion which he had the honor then to submit, to inquire into the expediency of reducing the duty on salt, and, if he recollected right, they were directed to report by bill, or otherwise; but, from some cause or other, to him unknown, that committee had never yet made any report on that subject. Courtesy might induce him to impute this neglect to the multiplicity of business put into the hands of the members of that committee. He, Mr. T., always considered the duty on this article too high, and falling particularly heavy on the agricultural part of the community. It
- 33. was now, and always had been his wish, to reduce it as soon as our revenue would permit, if consistent with the provisions made for paying off our national debt, and meeting the other exigencies of Government. For his part, he was at a loss, however, to discover that the present situation of our revenue, and the calls on Government for expenditure, together with the present aspect of our foreign relations, warranted this measure more now than last year. It was true that the war with the Barbary Powers up the Mediterranean had ceased, but it was also true, that the two and a half per cent. additional duty on goods paying ad valorem duties has likewise ceased with the peace concluded with Tripoli. This duty was laid for the support of, and was more than adequate to the expense of that war. Mr. J. Randolph said he certainly did not deny the existence of such a resolution. He had only observed that he did not recollect having received it from the Clerk. The Clerk read the resolution offered last session by Mr. Thomas, on the 7th of December, 1804, which was such as he had stated, and which appeared to have received the sanction of the House. Mr. Alston then moved that the resolution should be referred to a Committee of the Whole, which, after a few words in opposition by Mr. Leib, was disagreed to—yeas 22; when the original motion obtained without a division. Wednesday, April 16. Duties on Salt. The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the bill repealing the acts laying duties on salt, and continuing in force for a certain time the first section of the act, entitled “An act further to protect the commerce and seamen of the United States against the Barbary Powers,” as follows:
- 34. Sec. 1. Be it enacted, c., That from and after the —— day of —— next, so much of any act, or acts, as lays a duty on imported salt, be, and the same hereby is, repealed, and from and after the day aforesaid, salt shall be imported into the United States free of duty. Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That, from and after the first day of January next, so much of any act, or acts, as allows a bounty on exported salt provisions, and pickled fish, in lieu of drawback of the duties on the salt employed in curing the same, and so much of any act, or acts, as makes an allowance to the owners and crews of fishing vessels, in lieu of drawback of the duties paid on the salt used by the same, shall be, and the same hereby is, repealed.[40] Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That so much of the act, passed on the 25th day of March, 1804, entitled An act further to protect the commerce and seamen of the United States against the Barbary Powers, as is contained in the first section of the said act, be, and the same hereby is, continued in force until the end of the next session of Congress, and no longer. Mr. Quincy moved so to amend the first section as to repeal the act laying a duty on salt, additional to that originally imposed, so as to take off at present the duty of eight cents a bushel. He said he was of the opinion that taking off the whole duty on salt would have an injurious effect. A difference of twenty cents on the bushel would operate very seriously on those who had already made shipments. It was part of the duty of a legislator to avoid making such sudden changes as tended to destroy the confidence of the mercantile world in the stability of the laws. Whenever changes were made, they ought, in his opinion, to be gradual. Although he considered the general effect of this measure most important, yet, by too sudden an operation, it might affect a respectable class of individuals very injuriously. He would state the effect which he apprehended it would have. Suppose the repeal should take effect on the first day of July. A cargo of salt generally averages about four thousand bushels; the prime cost at Liverpool was about eleven cents a bushel. The cost of
- 35. the cargo would, therefore, be only $440; the duty would amount to $800; the freight, c., to about $1,000; making an aggregate of $2,240, which would be the cost in this country, on a mercantile calculation, supposing the present duties to remain in force. The present price of salt in this country was about fifty-three cents a bushel, which would produce something less than $2,240. The reason of the sum for which it is sold being less than that it costs is, that salt is merely made use of, in most cases, as a return cargo. Taking off the duty of twenty cents, would reduce the price to thirty- three cents a bushel, which would detract $920 from the value of the cargo, and would be more than double the prime cost of the salt. To so great a reduction, so suddenly made, Mr. Quincy said he objected. He had, he said, another reason for being against the section as it stood. The duty on salt was among the duties pledged for the payment of the national debt. At the time this pledge was made, the duty was twelve cents. The additional duty of eight cents was afterwards imposed. His object was, to reduce the existing duty eight cents, and to let the original duty of twelve cents stand, at least, until some notice had been given to the mercantile world. He believed that a reduction of the duty was highly desirable, and would be very popular. He might not, perhaps, object to an entire repeal if time were allowed him to consult his constituents, some of whom might possibly be ruined by it. All things considered, he thought it would be best to reduce the duty at present eight cents. This would leave Congress at liberty, at their next session, to take the entire repeal into consideration, which might be done in case they considered it eligible. Mr. J. Randolph said he should prefer the taking off eight cents, rather than suffering the duty to remain as it stood at present; but he hoped the whole duty would be taken off. One of the objections of the gentleman to taking off the whole duty was, that the merchants who have imported salt may be injured by it, and will not be able to compete with those who have imported it duty free. But this argument operated two ways. Did it not apply differently when the duty on salt was first laid? At that time, the very man who now
- 36. loses, gained in a correspondent ratio. To his mind, Mr. R. said, it was the strangest reason on earth, if this nation were in a situation to give up all its taxes, that it should be said by any gentleman, don’t repeal the laws imposing them, because my constituents, the merchants, have paid duties on some of them. If so, your taxes, so far from being diminished, may go on increasing ad infinitum. But, the truth is, we have the same right now to take off the duty on salt as our predecessors had to lay it on. But it seems that the original duty of twelve cents was put into pledge for the payment of the national debt. We were told the same thing five years ago when we proposed to repeal the internal taxes. They were, however, repealed without any violation of the public faith, and wherefore? The nation has contracted a debt to the public creditor, and so long as the Government finds funds wherewith to pay it, the public creditor has no right to ask whether we take it from our coat or breeches pocket? whether from a land tax, an excise, or from duties on imported articles? The pledge on our side is, to find money. If, after the repeal of this duty, the ways and means for the payment of this debt are found deficient, I agree that we are bound to make good the deficiency. But what do we propose? The amount of the duty on salt is less than $600,000, and at the same time that we take this off, we impose a duty which will produce a million. We take off a duty on a necessary of life, which falls peculiarly heavy on the poor, and on agriculture, and lay an ad valorem duty on gauze, catgut, and the Lord knows what, which produces from three to five thousand dollars more. Mr. Quincy asked whether a duty which produced $850,000 a year, which was limited to the end of the next session, and which was not pledged to the payment of the national debt, could be considered as equivalent to a permanent duty of half a million, imposed by an act which could not be repealed until the debt was paid? He did not think the new tax was a substitute of equal value, and he considered it one of the objects of this bill to get rid of the pledge to pay the debt.
- 37. Mr. J. Clay felt disposed to give every credit to gentlemen in their professions of regard towards the public debt. The answer to the objection was this: A certain fund, arising from the impost, was pledged to the payment and interest of the debt. An act had passed the last Congress increasing the fund appropriated for this purpose, from $7,200,000 to $8,000,000. If the duty on salt was not a component part of this sum, the objection of gentlemen was futile. Now it was a fact, that, so much as this sum was diminished by taking off the $520,000 arising from the duty on salt, so much was it increased by the other duty proposed to be laid by this act. So long as the taxes pledged exceeded eight millions, the Government sacredly regard their engagements. As an answer to all the sensibility displayed by gentlemen for the public faith, permit me, said Mr. C., to refer them to a resolution proposed in the seventh Congress, on the 25th of January, 1802, instructing the Committee of Ways and Means to inquire into the expediency of taking off, or reducing, the duty on brown sugar, coffee, and bohea tea. Another objection urged by gentlemen is, the effect of this bill on the merchants. There is no doubt that, in consequence of it, the price of salt will fall; but, would not this have been the effect on bohea tea, had their measure been successful? The effect, however, will be gradual, and there will be but little loss sustained by any one individual, as the price will begin to fall immediately on taking off the duty. I believe it is not a material error to say, that the traffic is pretty much in the hands of those men who enjoyed it when the duty was laid; and if so, those who now lose, will only lose as much as they before gained. I hope the blank in the bill will be so filled as to give six months notice of the imposition of the duty. Mr. Dana said, that if gentlemen were disposed to diminish the revenue, to screw up the Government, and if they were satisfied the Administration could get along without this tax, it would weigh much in his mind in favor of repeal; and, as they were disposed to grapple with difficulties and gain popularity, he believed he would gratify them by voting for the bill.
- 38. Mr. Quincy said he opposed such an excessive reduction of this duty at once, not only on the grounds he had stated, but on other grounds. In Massachusetts, in the neighborhood of Boston, very extensive manufactories of salt had been established, under the idea that the duty would be continued. The immediate effect of this measure might be to destroy and ruin them. Mr. Quincy’s motion to amend the section was likewise disagreed to without a division. On motion of Mr. J. Randolph, the blank, relative to the time when the duty was to take effect, was filled with the first day of October. The third section was then read, which continued the Mediterranean fund till the next session of Congress. Mr. Alston observed that, from the present appearance of things, he did not think it advisable that this section should remain as it was, as in six or eight months they would have again the same ground to travel over. His object was permanently to substitute the Mediterranean fund for the salt tax. He had no objection to make the exchange; to take off the perpetual tax on salt, and lay it on these articles. He thought there was no danger in trusting to the wisdom of Congress the discontinuance of the act imposing them; and that as long as there was a necessity for taxes, these subjects of taxation were as unexceptionable as any that could be laid. When they were about to strike so deeply at the revenue, they ought to be certain that the substitute offered would justify the measure. For these reasons he submitted a motion to make the Mediterranean fund perpetual. He thought this expedient, as the tax on salt was perpetual, and the substituted tax was not so certain as that on salt. With regard to the one, very little variation could take place; while the other might materially change with the times. Mr. Crowninshield then moved to amend the last section, so as to continue the Mediterranean fund for three years. Mr. J. Randolph hoped the amendment would not be agreed to. It would be remembered that the right of giving the public money was
- 39. the sole exclusive right of that branch of the Legislature; and that when they made grants for a long term of years, it would not depend on them alone whether they should be revoked. In his opinion, if the Constitution of the United States was practised on its true principles, that House ought not to give the public money out of its control. There was no existing cause for continuing this fund for three years, or for a longer period than that contemplated by the bill. The question was then taken on Mr. Crowninshield’s motion, which was disagreed to—ayes 28. When the question was taken on engrossing the bill, which was carried—ayes 83. Thursday, April 17. Duties on Salt. The bill repealing the acts laying duties on salt, and continuing in force, for a further time, the first section of the act, entitled “An act further to protect the commerce and seamen of the United States against the Barbary Powers,” was read a third time. Mr. Masters moved to recommit the bill, for the purpose of modifying its details. Mr. Quincy supported the motion; which was lost—ayes 37, nays 49. When the yeas and nays were taken on the passage of the bill— yeas 43, nays 11, as follows: Yeas.—Evan Alexander, Willis Alston, jun., Isaac Anderson, Burwell Bassett, George M. Bedinger, John Blake, junior, Thomas Blount, Robert Brown, Levi Casey, John Chandler, John Claiborne, Christopher Clark, Joseph Clay, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, Jacob Crowninshield, Richard Cutts, Samuel W. Dana, Ezra Darby, John Davenport, junior, John Dawson, Elias Earle, Peter Early, James
- 40. Elliot, Caleb Ellis, Ebenezer Elmer, William Ely, John W. Eppes, James Fisk, James M. Garnett, Charles Goldsborough, Peterson Goodwyn, Edwin Gray, Andrew Gregg, Silas Halsey, John Hamilton, David Holmes, David Hough, John G. Jackson, John Lambert, Joseph Lewis, junior, Patrick Magruder, Robert Marion, Thomas Moore, Jeremiah Morrow, John Morrow, Jonathan O. Mosely, Jeremiah Nelson, Roger Nelson, Thomas Newton, junior, Gideon Olin, Timothy Pitkin, junior, John Pugh, Josiah Quincy, John Randolph, Thomas M. Randolph, John Rea of Pennsylvania, Jacob Richards, Thomas Sammons, Thomas Sanford, Martin G. Schuneman, James Sloan, John Smilie, John Smith, Samuel Smith, Henry Southard, Richard Stanford, Joseph Stanton, Samuel Taggart, Benjamin Tallmadge, Samuel Tenney, David Thomas, Philip R. Thompson, Thomas W. Thompson, Abram Trigg, Killian K. Van Rensselaer, Joseph B. Varnum, Peleg Wadsworth, Robert Whitehill, David R. Williams, Marmaduke Williams, Alexander Wilson, Richard Wynn, and Joseph Winston. Nays.—Joseph Barker, John Fowler, Isaiah L. Green, Michael Leib, Matthew Lyon, Josiah Masters, William McCreery, Nicholas R. Moore, John Russell, Peter Sailly, and Uri Tracy. Friday, April 18. William Eaton. The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the bill authorizing the settlement of accounts between the United States and William Eaton. No amendment having been made to the bill, the House proceeded to consider the said bill at the Clerk’s table, and the same being again read, in the words following, to wit: Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled, That the proper accounting officers be, and they hereby are, authorized and directed to liquidate
- 41. and settle the accounts subsisting between the United States and William Eaton, late Consul at Tunis, upon just and equitable principles, under the direction of the Secretary of State. A motion was made by Mr. John Randolph, and the question being put, to amend the said bill, by striking out, at the end thereof, the words “under the direction of the Secretary of State;” it passed in the negative—yeas 43, nays 48. Ordered, That the said bill be engrossed, and read the third time on Monday next. Monday, April 21. Duties on Salt. The House took up the amendments of the Senate to the bill repealing the acts laying duties on salt, and continuing in force for a further time, the first section of the act, entitled “An act further to protect the commerce and seamen of the United States against the Barbary Powers.” These amendments proposed striking out all the provisions of the bill relative to the repeal of the duty on salt. Mr. J. Randolph.—I understand this House to have sent a bill to the Senate repealing the existing duty on salt, and continuing for a further time the tax imposing a duty of two and a half per cent. on articles previously charged with ad valorem duties. The Senate have returned the bill, retaining the supply we voted, as well as the tax proposed by us to be repealed. I hope we shall not agree to their amendments, and the reasons I shall offer will not be those drawn from expediency, but from my idea of the constitutional powers of this, and the other branch of the legislature—which is, that it is the sole and indisputable prerogative of this House to grant the money of the people of the United States. It is here only that a grant of
- 42. money can originate. It is true that the Senate have the power of amending money bills, but my idea of the extent to which that power can go, according to the true spirit of the constitution, is this: while the Senate may amend money bills to facilitate the collection of duties, or in other respects, as to their details, they do not possess the constitutional power of varying either the quantum of tax proposed in this House, or the object on which it may be levied. I hope the House will never consent to give up this invaluable privilege of saying what supplies they will grant, and the object on which they shall be levied. But, even supposing this objection nugatory, I hope this House will not suffer itself to be trapped, on the last day of the session, in agreeing to a grant it was never in their contemplation to make. When we sent a bill to the other branch to continue the Mediterranean duty, we sent at the same time, a bill to repeal the duty on salt. The amendment from the Senate can be viewed in no other light than as originating a money bill in the Senate. It goes to originate a tax on salt. Such, in effect, will be the object and tendency of the measure. Let us suppose, instead of sending to the Senate a bill imposing a new tax, we had sent a simple bill to repeal this same tax upon salt—could the Senate, by an amendment, rivet and continue the Mediterranean fund? And if they could, would not that be originating a money bill? I hope the House will disagree to the amendments of the Senate. Mr. Alston thought it would be advisable to accommodate with the Senate. In order to obtain an accommodation, he should vote, in the first instance, against the amendments of the Senate. On a conference, they may agree to strike off the duty of eight cents on salt, and the next year, when we shall better understand the ground on which we stand, the House may be disposed still further to lessen the burden. Mr. Rhea, of Tennessee.—I do not consider this bill as in the nature of a bill originating revenue, but as one, on the contrary, detracting from the revenue. I contend that the Senate have the power, at any time, to say they will not consent to the repeal of a revenue law, else they are a trifling, insignificant body. Are they not, as well as
- 43. we, to judge of the exigency of the country? This is not a question of expediency, but of necessity. Though we are desirous of taking off the duty on salt, such is the situation of the country, menaced with foreign danger, and particularly with a war with Tunis, that the revenue ought not to be diminished. For these reasons I shall concur in the amendment of the Senate. The yeas and nays were then taken on agreeing to the amendment of the Senate—yeas 24, nays 56. Mr. J. Randolph.—I hope we shall now adhere to our disagreement to the amendment of the Senate. I hope we shall not concur with the Senate, under the idea of reducing the duty on salt from twenty to twelve cents. Notwithstanding a fear entertained by some gentlemen of a deficiency in the revenue, the House, by a vast majority, passed the bill repealing the duty on salt. The Message of the President was referred to the Committee of Ways and Means, and that committee made a report recommending the taking off the duty on salt, and continuing the two and a half per cent. duty. Every objection to the measure that now exists then existed, and ought then to have been offered. We then sent to the other House a supply of money—a tax yielding $900,000, with the probability of its amounting the ensuing year to a million; in this same bill we proposed taking off a tax, which does not yield $600,000; we therefore made a grant of $400,000 annually. It is said that the amendment of the Senate does not go to the imposition of a new tax, but that it continues the revenue as it is. There is some plausibility, but no solidity in this remark. If it goes to continue the revenue as it now is, where is the necessity of continuing the duty of two and a half per cent.? It is therefore in fact a new money bill. Let me urge one thing to the House. If we ever mean to strike off the duty on salt, we must cling to the Mediterranean fund as the lever to lift this load from the shoulders of the people. It will be recollected that within five years we have taken off the internal taxes. I am glad of it; for I fear it would not now be done. They produced about $800,000, inclusive of the taxes which have expired, and $640,000 exclusive of them. But we have granted a supply of two and a half
- 44. per cent. duties, which yield, annually, from nine hundred thousand, to a million dollars. This is a complete offset to the repeal of the internal taxes. What we have lost by their repeal we have gained, with the addition of one or two hundred thousand dollars beyond the sum we should have received, had they been suffered to remain, and no addition been made to the duties on imports and tonnage; and yet we hear of the growing demands of the Government. But the growing demands of all Governments are alike. Do gentlemen recollect the growing state of the nation? When this Government was first put in motion, the duties on imports were not more than four or five millions. These resources are daily growing, and a fund accruing from the increasing prosperity of the people, which their guardians are bound to account for. Though we have contracted a debt for New Orleans, we have gained a revenue of not less than $300,000 a year. From these circumstances I hope we shall adhere to our disagreement to the amendments of the Senate, and that they will, in their justness and graciousness, yield a tax of half a million for a tax which produces a whole million. It is said the Senate may strike out all but the title of your bills. Indisputably; but will this House submit? Suppose you send a bill to the Senate laying a duty of two per cent. on saltpetre, and they send it back to you, striking out this provision, and giving you a bill in lieu of it, laying a tax of four shillings in the pound on all the lands of the United States. Is that, under the constitution, a fair exercise of their power? To my mind, if the position be admitted, that it is the sole privilege of this House to grant the public money, it is extremely indecent, to say no more, for that branch of the Legislature to tell the United States they will get all the money they can, whatever may be the disposition of this House. Recollect how the salt tax was laid before—on the last day of an expiring Congress, after a proposition to lay the tax had been rejected, and members had gone home, under the persuasion that no such attempt would be renewed. By some little modification of that proposition, a tax of twenty cents was laid on every fifty-six pounds of salt, and riveted on the people for ever. When I say for ever, I mean the period of its
- 45. being taken off depends on a branch of the Legislature over which the people have but little control, who are the representatives, not of the people, but of the State sovereignties. Now, if the House do wish, as surely they must, to get rid of this tax, and if they believe, as they must, that the present circumstances of the country admit of its repeal, else the bill would not have passed by so large a majority, I hope they will adhere to their disagreement to the amendments of the Senate, and put it in the power of the other branch to take so much of the public money as it is our pleasure to grant, and not one cent more. Mr. Conrad.—I hope we shall not adhere, but try a conference. It will then be time enough to consider whether we will adhere. Anxious as I am to get rid of this odious tax, I will agree to reduce the duty to twelve cents, or keep the Mediterranean fund, and next session judge whether we are able to take off the whole of it. The motion to adhere was then disagreed to—yeas 36, nays 42. When the House agreed to insist on their disagreement to the amendment of the Senate, and appointed a committee of conference. And then, on a motion, made and seconded, the House adjourned until half past six o’clock, post meridian. Eodem Die, half-past 6 o’clock. Salt Duty. CONFERENCE. Mr. Gregg, from the committee of conference on the same bill, observed that the conferees on the part of the Senate did not discover any disposition to recede from their amendments. The conferees on the part of the House stated the danger of losing the bill if the conferees did not relax, and proposed to meet them on the ground of compromise, by taking off the duty of eight cents imposed
- 46. on salt. To this proposition the conferees on the part of the Senate declined acceding. Mr. J. Randolph moved that the House adhere to their disagreement to the amendments of the Senate. Mr. Alston.—Having done every thing in our power to repeal the duty on salt or to lessen it, the only question is, whether we shall continue the Mediterranean fund until the next session or not. I call on gentlemen to take a review of the different estimates from the Treasury during the present session, and to consider the expenses they warrant—I allude particularly to the appropriation of two millions towards the purchase of the Floridas, to decide whether we can do without the Mediterranean fund. The great object with me in advocating the repeal of the duty on salt was to obtain the Mediterranean fund. We have done our part to effect this object. I believe with the aid of that fund, though the duty on salt had been taken off, our revenue would have been sufficient; though even the greatest economy would have been requisite in the disbursement of the public money. Mr. J. Randolph.—I hope we shall adhere to our vote, and I will give my reasons for indulging this hope. I do not profess to be so well acquainted with the subjects of finance as some other gentlemen on this floor. But if the Mediterranean fund is to be continued for so short a time, it is obvious that the revenue to be gleaned from it will be proportionally small. The arguments of gentlemen therefore rebut themselves. They declare that they want a revenue, while they acknowledge that the continuance of this tax will produce but a small one. I hope that we shall keep the Mediterranean fund as a hostage for the salt tax. If between this and the next session a deficiency shall occur in our ways and means, to meet the demands of the Government, it will not be the first time, as I know it will not be the last, in which I shall step forward to vote a supply to meet every honorable demand. If there shall be deficit, as there is no reason to believe there will be, I pledge myself as one of those who will meet it. I wish to adhere to our vote, that the Mediterranean
- 47. fund may be lost; for we have been told by those who, I presume, are well acquainted on such points, that such a course will enforce economy, and I wish I could add, in the words of an honorable friend who has no longer a seat here, would ensure economy. The question was then taken by yeas and nays on adhering—yeas 40, nays 47. The House then agreed to recede from their disagreement to the amendment of the Senate—ayes 45, noes 36. Hamet Caramalli. The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill sent from the Senate, entitled “An act for the temporary relief of Hamet Caramalli.” The bill was reported without amendment, read the third time, and passed—yeas 71, nays 6. Adjournment. Mr. Early, from the committee appointed on the part of this House, jointly, with the committee appointed on the part of the Senate, to wait on the President of the United States, and notify him of the proposed recess of Congress, reported that the committee had performed that service; and that the President signified to them he had no farther communication to make during the present session. A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate, having finished the legislative business before them, are now ready to adjourn. Ordered, That a message be sent to the Senate to inform them that this House, having completed the business before them, are now about to adjourn until the first Monday in December next; and that the Clerk of this House do go with the said message. The Clerk accordingly went with the said message; and, being returned, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House until the first Monday in
- 48. December next.
- 49. NINTH CONGRESS.—SECOND SESSION. BEGUN AT THE CITY OF WASHINGTON, DECEMBER 1, 1806. PROCEEDINGS IN THE SENATE. Monday, December 1, 1806. The second session of the Ninth Congress, conformably to the Constitution of the United States, commenced this day, at the city of Washington, and the Senate assembled, in their Chamber. PRESENT: George Clinton, Vice President of the United States, and President of the Senate. William Plumer and Nicholas Gilman, from New Hampshire. John Quincy Adams and Timothy Pickering, from Massachusetts. Uriah Tracy, from Connecticut. Benjamin Howland, from Rhode Island. Stephen R. Bradley and Israel Smith, from Vermont. Samuel L. Mitchill, from New York. John Condit and Aaron Kitchel, from New Jersey. George Logan and Samuel Maclay, from Pennsylvania. Samuel White, from Delaware. David Stone, from North Carolina.
- 50. John Gaillard, from South Carolina. Abraham Baldwin, from Georgia. Thomas Worthington, from Ohio. William B. Giles, appointed a Senator by the Legislature of the Commonwealth of Virginia, for the term of six years, from and after the 4th day of March last, produced his credentials, which were read; and, the oath prescribed by law having been administered to him, he took his seat in the Senate. A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that a quorum of the House is assembled, and are ready to proceed to business. Ordered, That the Secretary notify the House of Representatives that a quorum of the Senate is assembled, and ready to proceed to business. A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that the House have appointed a joint committee, on their part, with such committee as the Senate may appoint, to wait on the President of the United States, and notify him that a quorum of the two Houses is assembled, and ready to receive any communication that he may be pleased to make to them. The Senate took into consideration the resolution of the House of Representatives last mentioned, for the appointment of a joint committee, and Resolved, That they do concur therein; and Ordered, That Messrs. Mitchill and Stone be the committee on the part of the Senate. Mr. Mitchill reported, from the joint committee, that they had waited on the President of the United States, agreeably to the resolution of this day, and that the President of the United States had informed the committee that he would make a communication to the two Houses to-morrow, at twelve o’clock.
- 51. Tuesday, December 2. Samuel Smith, from the State of Maryland, and Buckner Thruston, from the State of Kentucky, attended. Resolved, That James Mathers, Sergeant-at-Arms and Doorkeeper to the Senate, be, and he is hereby authorized to employ one assistant and two horses, for the purpose of performing such services as are usually required by the Doorkeeper to the Senate; and that the sum of twenty-eight dollars be allowed him weekly for that purpose, to commence with, and remain during the session, and for twenty days after. Annual Message. The following Message was received from the President of the United States: To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States: It would have given me, fellow-citizens, great satisfaction to announce, in the moment of your meeting, that the difficulties in our foreign relations, existing at the time of your last separation, had been amicably and justly terminated. I lost no time in taking those measures which were most likely to bring them to such a termination, by special missions, charged with such powers and instructions as, in the event of failure, could leave no imputation on either our moderation or forbearance. The delays which have since taken place in our negotiations with the British Government appear to have proceeded from causes which do not forbid the expectation that, during the course of the session, I may be enabled to lay before you their final issue. What will be that of the negotiations for settling our differences with Spain, nothing which had taken place at the date of the last despatches enables us to pronounce. On the western side of the Mississippi she advanced in considerable force, and took post at the settlement of Bayou Pierre, on the Red river.
- 52. This village was originally settled by France, was held by her as long as she held Louisiana, and was delivered to Spain only as a part of Louisiana. Being small, insulated, and distant, it was not observed, at the moment of redelivery to France and the United States, that she continued a guard of half a dozen men, which had been stationed there. A proposition, however, having been lately made by our Commander-in-chief, to assume the Sabine river as a temporary line of separation between the troops of the two nations until the issue of our negotiations shall be known, this has been referred by the Spanish commandant to his superior, and in the mean time he has withdrawn his force to the western side of the Sabine river. The correspondence on this subject, now communicated, will exhibit more particularly the present state of things in that quarter. Having received information that, in another part of the United States, a great number of private individuals were combining together, arming and organizing themselves contrary to law, to carry on a military expedition against the territories of Spain, I thought it necessary, by proclamation, as well as by special orders, to take measures for preventing and suppressing this enterprise, for seizing the vessels, arms, and other means provided for it, and for arresting and bringing to justice its authors and abettors. It was due to that good faith which ought ever to be the rule of action in public as well as in private transactions, it was due to good order and regular government that, while the public force was acting strictly on the defensive, and merely to protect our citizens from aggression, the criminal attempts of private individuals to decide, for their country, the question of peace or war, by commencing active and unauthorized hostilities, should be promptly and efficaciously suppressed. In a country whose constitution is derived from the will of the people, directly expressed by their free suffrages, where the principal Executive functionaries, and those of the Legislature, are renewed by them at short periods; where, under the character of jurors, they exercise in person the greatest portion of the judiciary powers; where the laws are consequently so formed and
- 53. administered as to bear with equal weight and favor on all, restraining no man in the pursuits of honest industry, and securing to every one the property which that acquires, it would not be supposed that any safeguards could be needed against insurrection, or enterprise, on the public peace or authority. The laws, however, aware that these should not be trusted to moral restraints only, have wisely provided punishment for these crimes when committed. But would it not be salutary to give also the means of preventing their commission? Where an enterprise is meditated by private individuals against a foreign nation in amity with the United States, powers of prevention, to a certain extent, are given by the laws; would they not be as reasonable and useful where the enterprise preparing is against the United States? While adverting to this branch of law it is proper to observe, that, in enterprises meditated against foreign nations, the ordinary process of binding to the observance of the peace and good behavior, could it be extended to acts to be done out of the jurisdiction of the United States, would be effectual in some cases where the offender is able to keep out of sight every indication of his purpose which could draw on him the exercise of the powers now given by law. The expedition of Messrs. Lewis and Clarke, for exploring the river Missouri, and the best communication from that to the Pacific Ocean, has had all the success which could have been expected. They have traced the Missouri nearly to its source, descended the Columbia to the Pacific Ocean, ascertained with accuracy the geography of that interesting communication across our continent, learnt the character of the country, of its commerce, and inhabitants; and it is but justice to say, that Messrs. Lewis and Clarke, and their brave companions, have, by this arduous service, deserved well of their country. I congratulate you, fellow-citizens, on the approach of the period at which you may interpose your authority, constitutionally, to withdraw the citizens of the United States from all further participation in those violations of human rights which have been so long continued on the unoffending inhabitants of Africa, and which the morality, the reputation, and the best interests of our country,
- 54. have long been eager to proscribe. Although no law you may pass can take prohibitory effect till the day of the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, yet the intervening period is not too long to prevent, by timely notice, expeditions which cannot be completed before that day. The receipts at the Treasury, during the year ending on the 30th day of September last, have amounted to nearly fifteen millions of dollars, which have enabled us, after meeting the current demands, to pay two millions seven hundred thousand dollars of the American claims, in part of the price of Louisiana; to pay of the funded debt, upwards of three millions of principal, and nearly four of interest; and, in addition, to reimburse, in the course of the present month, nearly two millions of five and a half per cent. stock. These payments and reimbursements of the funded debt, with those which had been made in the four years and a half preceding, will, at the present year, have extinguished upwards of twenty-three millions of principal. The duties composing the Mediterranean fund will cease, by law, at the end of the present session. Considering, however, that they are levied chiefly on luxuries, and that we have an impost on salt, a necessary of life, the free use of which otherwise is so important, I recommend to your consideration the suppression of the duties on salt, and the continuation of the Mediterranean fund instead thereof, for a short time, after which that also will become unnecessary for any purpose now within contemplation. When both of these branches of revenue shall in this way be relinquished, there will still, ere long, be an accumulation of moneys in the Treasury beyond the instalments of public debt which we are permitted by contract to pay. They cannot, then, without a modification, assented to by the public creditors, be applied to the extinguishment of this debt, and the complete liberation of our revenues, the most desirable of all objects; nor, if our peace continues, will they be wanting for any other existing purpose. The question, therefore, now comes forward: To what other objects shall
- 55. these surpluses be appropriated, and the whole surplus of impost, after the entire discharge of the public debt, and during those intervals when the purposes of war shall not call for them? Shall we suppress the impost, and give that advantage to foreign over domestic manufactures? On a few articles, of more general and necessary use, the suppression, in due season, will doubtless be right, but the great mass of the articles on which impost is paid are foreign luxuries, purchased by those only who are rich enough to afford themselves the use of them. Their patriotism would certainly prefer its continuance and application to the great purposes of the public education, roads, rivers, canals,[41] and such other objects of public improvement as it may be thought proper to add to the constitutional enumeration of federal powers. By these operations new channels of communication will be opened between the States; the lines of separation will disappear; their interests will be identified and their Union cemented by new and indissoluble ties. Education is here placed among the articles of public care, not that it would be proposed to take its ordinary branches out of the hands of private enterprise, which manages so much better all the concerns to which it is equal; but a public institution can alone supply those sciences which, though rarely called for, are yet necessary to complete the circle, all the parts of which contribute to the improvement of the country, and some of them to its preservation. The subject is now proposed for the consideration of Congress, because, if approved by the time the State Legislature shall have deliberated on this extension of the federal trusts, and the laws shall be passed and other arrangements made for their execution, the necessary funds will be on hand, and without employment. I suppose an amendment to the constitution, by consent of the States, necessary, because the objects now recommended are not among those enumerated in the constitution, and to which it permits the public moneys to be applied. The present consideration of a national establishment, for education particularly, is rendered proper by this circumstance; also that, if Congress, approving the proposition, shall yet think it more
- 56. Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to specialized publications, self-development books, and children's literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system, we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading. Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and personal growth! ebookultra.com