the naked truth shall not go forth until his friends
had prepared a commentary to accompany it?
He was astonished that any gentleman could ad-
vance the doctrine here, that papers must, of ne-
cessity, go to the world with a commentary and
argument to each this fellow-citizens how to un-
derstand the record. He prayed that members of
the House, who had been nearly a fortnight wait-
ing for these papers to be printed, might have
the privilege of having these documents before
them. He admitted that the argument of the
committee was ingenious --

The SPEAKER reminded the gentleman from
Rhode Island, that it was not in order to discuss
the merits of the report on a question to print.

Mr. BURGES said he was not about to go into
the merits. He would say the report had no
merits. He wished to have the testimony with-
out the commentary; and he prayed that the
order already made by the House should be
complied with.

The SPEAKER stated, that when the order of
the House was made to refer the documents and
print them, he had submitted the papers to the
chairman of the committee, a course which he
thought perfectly proper.

Mr. DRAYTON referred to the course pursued
at the last session, as to the documents connect-
ed with the dispute between the U. States and
the State of Georgia. A motion was then made,
by the chairman of the committee, that all
the documents should be appended to the report
of the committee, and they were so appended.
The committee of which he was a member,
had, in the course of their investigation, found
it necessary to examine a mass of documents,
some of which were only to be obtained from
the Indian Department, and all these were ap-
pended to their report. There was nothing
novel, therefore, in this proposition.

Mr. BUCHANAN said: I rise to express a sin-
cere hope that the House may promptly decide
this question. I fear, from the course which
the debate has taken, that we may again find
ourselves involved in a political contest. I call
upon those gentlemen upon this floor, if there
be any such, with whom my opinion has any
influence, to avoid making this a party ques-
tion. The House have already wasted suffi-
cient time upon questions of that character.
We have already withdrawn ourselves long
enough from the public business of the nation,
for the purpose of attending to the politics of
the day.

What is the true, the intrinsic nature of the
question now before the House? It is simply
this: Shall the documents be printed with, or
without, the report of the committee? What
possible difficulty can arise in answering this
question? No gentleman has objected to print-
ing the report. Whether the documents shall
be attached to the report or not, both will be
read by the people of the United States. Then
why detach them from each other? Let them
go together. The question, however, is one of
so trifling a character, that I should vote in the
negative, rather than be instrumental in pro-
ducing another protracted party debate.

The Committee on Military Affairs have
been, in my opinion, unjustly censured, because
they took possession of the documents before
they were printed. But was not the order of
the House to refer, equally powerful with the
order to print? The committee had at least as
much right to the possession of these docu-
ments, as the printer. One gentleman may
have wished that the printing might be the
first step, while another desired that the refer-
ence might have the precedence. How, then,
are the committee censurable? If the print-
ing had been delayed too long, the House could
and would have exercised a control over their
committee.

If the House had wished the documents to
be printed, without the commentary of the
committee, they ought to have passed an order
for printing simply. But at the same time that
we ordered the printing, we sent the docu-
ments to the committee. For what purpose?
Certainly that we might obtain their report:
and now the only question is, whether the
documents, and the report upon them, shall be
printed together, or separately? I shall vote
that the commentary shall accompany the text;
but yet I think it a matter of very little im-
portance.

The only change which the committee have
made in the order of the letters, is to place
them in the order of their dates, and make the
answer follow the letter to which it is a reply.
No gentleman can wish to see the answer
placed before the letter which gave birth to it.
Mr. B. again expressed a hope that this might
not become a party question, and produce a
party debate.

Mr. TAYLOR, in reply to the question which
had been asked, as to what difference it made
how the documents were printed, said that
there were two distinct series of printing: one
of which embraces Executive documents, and
the other Reports of Committees. At a future
day, when this information should be sought
for, the Executive documents would naturally
be looked to. Should it be transferred to Re-
ports of Committees, it would not be in its
natural place. It does not now come before us
as from the Executive Departments at all. The
House had ordered that it should be printed as
an Executive document, and as such it ought to
be printed. Precedents had been referred to.
One gentleman had referred to the case of the
Vice President. In that case, the documents
were matters collected as evidence, and formed
a part of the report. This is a very different
matter. If the Department has presented these
documents in a manner to impose on the peo-
ple, the committee might cast a censure on the
Department; but the House owes it to the De-
partment to print the information as it has
been received. He thought it high time that
we should proceed with the public business.
He had come to the House this day in that ex-

-4-