LETTERS OP A CITIZEN. 69 



cisely my views with reference to the point at issue. The heads 

 of departments at Washington receive, as compensation for their 

 services, six thousand dollars per annum each. Suppose, at the 

 commencement of the next session, when the bill making pro- 

 vision for the civil list is presented, that under the head of " for 

 the secretary of the navy" twelve thousand dollars should be in- 

 serted. The subject comes before the house. Some member 

 inquires, How is this ? Here is an appropriation of twelve 

 thousand dollars where six thousand stood before ; a frigate in 

 place of a sloop-of-war ; I go against that, Mr. Speaker. On the 

 other hand, it is urged that, in consideration of the " extraordinary 

 efforts" of the secretary of the navy in fitting out the expedition, 

 and of the extra and unpleasant duties imposed upon him by the 

 measure, as also to compensate him, in some slight degree, for 

 the loss of ofBcial character he has sustained, this additional re- 

 muneration had been proposed. Finally, the claim is entertained 

 and sanctioned by Congress, though not until some unsuccessful 

 motions have been made to strike out the allowance altoffeiher. 

 Now, under these circumstances, does any man doubt that you 

 would be entitled to the twelve thousand, or could any executive 

 officer withhold the same without violation of law ? What would 

 be thought of the United States treasurer, should he assemble a 

 board of auditors to inquire if the appropriation made for the 

 honourable secretary of the navy could not be reduced without 

 prejudice to the public service ? 



1 have now done with the law authorizing the expedition, and 

 cheerfully leave it for the public to decide whether I have or 

 have not shown that, under that authority, you can have no legal 

 plea for your late proceedings. I have said more on this head 

 than I originally intended, because it was evidently the point of 

 all others upon which " A Friend to the Navy," in his first num- 

 ber, relied with most confidence in making out your defence. 



Perhaps the most curious part of that defence is the positive 

 tone in which it is still denied that Congress or the executive re- 

 garded the expedition as a means of protection to our commerce. 

 I have already reviewed this point in my second and third letters, 

 and, by the production of evidence from memorials, reports, 

 speeches, &c., have so completely removed every loop upon 

 which a doubt could be hung, that nothing but an unaccountable 



