Mr. AULSBURY. I will say in reply to.the honorable Senfrom Massachusetts that this is the 1st time I ever heard that the attention of the Governor of my State was called to this subject. I was in the State at the time, and certainly if his attention was called to it he never called the attention of the Legislature of the State to' it. We had interests to protect. The breakwater near the mouth of the Dela ware bay and the shipping there was exposed, and it would have been very desirable indeed to have had fortifications erected there. If we had thought that we could get reimbursed by the General Government for erecting fortifications there we certainly would have erected them. It would have given employment to our people, and would have brought considerable money into the treasury; because, after all, when a bill is made out by a particular State and presented to the Genera Government it is very apt to be large enough; it is no money'losing business, but rather a mono making business. I apprehend there is hard y a State in the Union but what would have expended, if it had had such an offer, considerable money in erecting fortifications on its own coast. But: it turns out now that a great deal of the amount asked for by this resolution is for guns and ammunition. If Massachusetts has expended money for guns and ammunition and now wishes to get clear of them, let her at them up at public sale and let the Federal Government vbuy them; or let her representatives bring in a bill authorizing the General Government to purchase of the State of Massachusetts ans and ammunition; but do not put it. in the mm of reimbursing Massachusetts for money expended in coast defense, for these guhs and am munition which are on band now certainly do not properly come under that head. It is not money eXpended for coast defense. It is money expended in buying just as many guns and just as much ammunition asthe authorities of Mao‘ sachusetts deemed proper or necessary; and then if they had any surplus on hand why should they be paid for by the General Government? I do not object to this measure on account of its coming from Massachusetts. I would havetmade the same 'objection if it had come from any other State. The point of my objec‘tion is, that if you once set this‘precedent, and we should ever be in awar again, or threatened with war, every State, of its own motion, will, buy guns and ammunition, and erect and complete fortifications, with the expectation that the Federal Government will pay the amount of the expenditure; and having set the precedent in this case, I ask you, sir, how could you reasonably deny such an application 7 It is admitted here that there was no not of congress and no authority of law under which this money was expended. It seems simply to have been a notification from the SecyState that there was danger of invasion of the harbors of the coast. The SecyState is not the General Government. The SecyState has no authority to draw money from the public Treasu, or to contract with a State or an individual iat mone shall be so drawn, or to pledge the faith of the Government that if money is expended it shall be paid. As to this particular case, if it stood alone, if it was not or the precedent that will be set byit, and the dangers you will incur of having large drafts hereafter made upon your Treasur, I would not say a word. ith these remar s, having no feeling whatever in the case, I submit the question to the Senate and shall say no more about it.