Mr. Montgomery spoke in favor of the amendment, under the impression that there was no disposition in Congress to make use of the Navy. Although the number of seamen in service might not exceed two thousand seven hundred and twenty, as stated, yet the President now had power to authorize the employment of five thousand four hundred and ninety men. The adoption of the amendment, he said, would curtail the present annual expense, $778,000.
Mr. Mumford spoke against the amendment. He remarked that the counting-house calculation of pounds, shillings, and pence, heretofore imputed as a fault to the merchants, seemed to have been transferred to the planters of cotton and tobacco. He did not regard a little expense when put in competition with the national safety.
Mr. Smilie's amendment was negatived.
The section for disusing all the navy-yards except those at Boston, New York, and Norfolk, having been read—
Mr. Key moved to insert "Washington" after New York, and, speaking in support of his motion, expatiated on the advantages possessed by a navy-yard at the seat of Government.
Mr. Bassett concurred with Mr. Key in opinion; but, as he presumed the section was only meant as an accompaniment to that part of the bill already stricken out, he moved to strike out the whole section.
Mr. Dana opposed the amendment. Six navy-yards were certainly not necessary for the service of the United States, and he particularly opposed the retention of the yard at Washington.
Mr. Key spoke in reply to Mr. Dana, and in support of Mr. Bassett's motion. He defended the navy-yard at Washington against the imputations cast on it.
Messrs. Tallmadge and Dana spoke against the amendment.
Mr. Smilie spoke in favor of the amendment, and expressed his astonishment at the change which appeared to have taken place in the House since they had voted, 60 to 31, a few days ago, to reduce the Navy.